Bug with binary file backup.
Thu, 07 Feb 2002 23:33:50 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>>>> "DS" == Dan Sturtevant <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>>>> wrote the following on Thu, 7 Feb 2002 14:05:45 -0500 (EST)
DS> 4. This was a nogo. rdiff's output (from the diff of the 2
DS> tarballs) was ~650Megs. Each of the distro's was approximately
DS> the same size. I assume that this was because of file offsets
DS> within the tar file and because lots of binary info was present.
DS> The algorithm just didnt work for this case.
This is a bit disappointing... It seems rdiff isn't as good at
finding binary similarities as I thought. Just for my curiousity
though, if you still have the tarballs around, could you try the same
thing with xdelta v1.x.x? You can find RPMs of it with rpmfind. I'm
wondering if it is superior to rdiff for this kind of thing.
DS> 1. With rdiff-backup I had no problem with the exception of
DS> files with identical times, sizes, names, etc. This problem was
DS> worked around by adding a touch to my scripts. I will be using
DS> this system. I plan on rpming it for our needs and writing some
DS> utility scripts.
Glad to hear it.. Just hope none of your files were named \...
DS> Question - Why is python 2.2 required? I haven't tried it with
DS> Python 2.1, but It would make my life easier if i could just
DS> rely on the Python 2.1 rpm. What new functionality do you use?
Mainly iterators and generators (I use a lot of these - the whole
program is basically built around them) and maybe a bit of the
type/class unification, I'm not sure.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 01/15/2001
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----