Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:34:47 +0100
From:      j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch)
To:        freebsd-current@freebsd.org (FreeBSD-current users)
Subject:   Re: Good name for a dump(8) option?
Message-ID:  <Mutt.19970203093447.j@uriah.heep.sax.de>
In-Reply-To: <199702030304.UAA19877@rocky.mt.sri.com>; from Nate Williams on Feb 2, 1997 20:04:37 -0700
References:  <Mutt.19970201144514.j@uriah.heep.sax.de> <199702030304.UAA19877@rocky.mt.sri.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Nate Williams wrote:

> > i've implemented an option to dump(8) to bypass all tape length
> > considerations, and dump straight to the end-of-tape indication, as it
> > is probably most appropriate for all today's tape drives (due to
> > compression and/or multiple backups per volume).
> 
> Oooh, I *like* it.  Now, if you can only send the code to Sun and have
> them use it as well. :) :)

The code is already in there, it's only that i'm enforcing to use it.
If you call the old dump(8) with a tape length that is way too large,
it will do exactly the same (except of the bogus ``will be on 0.01
tapes'' message i'm avoiding).

-- 
cheers, J"org

joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Mutt.19970203093447.j>