Re: cross-platform backup tool Is anybody actively testing the beta version?

[EricZolf]

Hi,

On 06/11/2022 06:52, Frank Crawford wrote:
> On Sun, 2022-11-06 at 06:37 +0100, EricZolf wrote:
> > Hi,
> ...
> > > There is only one minor issue I still have outstanding, which
> > > relates
> > > to permissions in the repo, and I haven't really sorted out what
> > > the
> > > difference is yet.  However, I wouldn't wait for this, as it is a
> > > minor item.
> > Are we talking about
> > https://github.com/rdiff-backup/rdiff-backup/issues/765 or do you
> > have
> > something more?
>
> It is the comment I made towards the end that mentioned about a file
> not being backed up in a read-only directory.
>
> I'm yet to find time to follow up if it is a real issue, or rather an
> issue due to previous backup versions, failures, repairs, etc.
>
> Also, I've been meaning to ask, previously (rdiff-backup 1.x) the
> permissions of all the files in the repo seemed to match the source,
> although I don't think it had to.  I know the actual permissions are
> stored separately.
>
> Is that the case in the current version, or are they just approximately
> correct, i.e. things like read-only directories get write permission
> added?

The file system permissions are approximately correct, the file 
permissions are nevertheless stored 100% correctly as metadata (in 
rdiff-backup-data/mirror_metadata.DATEANDTIME.snapshot.gz), so that they 
can be 100% restored, if possible. Both file system permissions (backup 
and restored) are mainly dependent on the capabilities of the user doing 
the backup resp. restore.

E.g. as a normal user can't change the owner of a file, all files they 
create will belong to them; on the other hand, doing backup and restore 
as root should guarantee 100% the same access rights (assuming things 
like SELinux don't stand in the way).

I don't think this behaviour changed between 2.0 and 2.1+

Hope this explains it,
Eric

> > KR, Eric
>
> Regards
> Frank