From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Feb 10 18:35:24 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA03492 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 18:35:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from alcanet.com.au (border.alcanet.com.au [203.62.196.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA03486 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 18:35:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter.jeremy@auss2.alcatel.com.au) Received: by border.alcanet.com.au id <40350>; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:24:48 +1100 Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:35:13 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy Subject: Re: Change to inherit nodump flag? To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Message-Id: <99Feb11.132448est.40350@border.alcanet.com.au> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Matthew Dillon wrote: > Personally, I think this is the correct way of doing it - nodump > would be inherited just as directory gid is inherited. This sounds like the cleanest solution. > Another solution would be to hack the 'dump' program to be able to > remember 'nodump' recursively. I don't think that is as good a > solution as adjusting i_flags on create. Julian Elischer wrote: >a better idea is to make th eapplication not descend into trees that have >the nodump bit set on the directory. The problem with this is that dump(8) does not traverse the filesystem in a normal fashion. I suspect the code to implement this is non- trivial. Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message