On Thursday 10 September 2009 12:25:25 Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 10:53 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Thursday 10 September 2009 09:37:04 Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 07:21 -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Thursday September 10 2009, Chuck Payne wrote:
I have about twenty boxes I need to back up. I been told that cpio is go to do that, I currently use tar but by directory by directory
I don't think there's any reason to prefer cpio over tar.
Ditto on the use of cpio. But I'd recommend star over tar.
I suggest pax over any other archiver. It is the preferred replacement for tar or cpio in the Single UNIX Specification. Both tar and cpio have been marked "LEGACY" since at least 1998.
Does pax archive ACLs and extended attributes?
<http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/utilities/pax.html> documents what pax, tar, and cpio can do *portably*. Any individual implementation may be able to do more. In particular, the pax extended header reserves the "security." prefix for ACLs to be later standardized. A pax implementation could use (e.g.) "gnu.linux-ea" values to (re)store the EAs (which includes ACLs) from a Linux file system that supports them. If you don't care that your script/program depends on very specific and usually not-well-defined features of the particular implementation you happen to be developing against, that's fine with me. I prefer to write scripts and programs I can take to the *BSDs and Mac OS X (UNIX 2003 Certified) without modification. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/