On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 16:37 -0400, Michael Wiktowy wrote: > What I think is being asked for here is the default treatment of > sparse > files to be changed. > Right now, tar doesn't do anything special to handle sparse files, by > default. > It could, equally as legitimately, have --sparse assumed by default > and > require some sort of --nosparse option to be used if you want it to > not > handle sparse files. > I don't really see that as being unreasonable. However, I don't have > a > lot of experience with using tar to backup though. In your > experience, > is there a reason not to use --sparse in most occasions? > Usually sensible defaults are the best way to go and if 99% of the > time, > you want your tar to "condense" sparse files, then it is likely best > to > make it do that by default. > And then we have an even longer thread about tar changing it's default behavior and pissing off even MORE admins who have been using tar for decades on not just Linux. That is a VERY silly suggestion. -- Jesse Keating RHCE (http://geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (http://www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (http://geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part