copy all /home direcories to new drive?
Ohmster
Fedora Core 3 system that I want to keep and pluck from, once the new
system is in place on a new hard drive. I will install a new hard drive in
the machine and then do an FC5 install. What I intend to do after that is
to copy all of the original /home directories over to the new disc from the
old disc. I will mount the original FC3 disk as /mnt/old_sys and would then
like to restore the home directories over to the new disk. How can I do
this and maintain ownership of the files, their directory structures, and
permissions on the files? Is this command appropriate?
cp -a -r /mnt/old_sys /home
Will that give me what I want? I need to know pretty soon as I want to do
this install on the weekend. Thanks.
--
~Ohmster
theohmster at comcast dot net
Put "messageforohmster" in message body
to pass my spam filter.
J.O. Aho
> Hi. I want to install Fedora Core 5 on a new hard drive and have a current
> Fedora Core 3 system that I want to keep and pluck from, once the new
> system is in place on a new hard drive. I will install a new hard drive in
> the machine and then do an FC5 install. What I intend to do after that is
> to copy all of the original /home directories over to the new disc from the
> old disc. I will mount the original FC3 disk as /mnt/old_sys and would then
> like to restore the home directories over to the new disk. How can I do
> this and maintain ownership of the files, their directory structures, and
> permissions on the files? Is this command appropriate?
>
> cp -a -r /mnt/old_sys /home
> Will that give me what I want?
No, this will copy the old_sys directory with everything inside it to /home,
not what you want.example: /home/old_sys/tmp /home/old_sys/home and so on...
as a root user:
cp -a /mnt/old_sys/home/* /home/
This will copy all the files and directories in /mnt/old_sys/home to /home and
keep ownerships and create symlinks if there was a symlink in the source
directories.
//Aho
Ohmster
news:4o6erdF...@individual.net:
>
> No, this will copy the old_sys directory with everything inside it to
> /home, not what you want.example: /home/old_sys/tmp /home/old_sys/home
> and so on...
>
> as a root user:
> cp -a /mnt/old_sys/home/* /home/
>
> This will copy all the files and directories in /mnt/old_sys/home to
> /home and keep ownerships and create symlinks if there was a symlink
> in the source directories.
>
>
> //Aho
Oh duh! What an oversight. Yep, that is what I want, thanks Aho.
I don't need the -r switch to be recursive as the home directories do have
public_html directories in them?
noi
> Hi. I want to install Fedora Core 5 on a new hard drive and have a current
> Fedora Core 3 system that I want to keep and pluck from, once the new
> system is in place on a new hard drive. I will install a new hard drive in
> the machine and then do an FC5 install. What I intend to do after that is
> to copy all of the original /home directories over to the new disc from
> the old disc. I will mount the original FC3 disk as /mnt/old_sys and would
> then like to restore the home directories over to the new disk. How can I
> do this and maintain ownership of the files, their directory structures,
> and permissions on the files? Is this command appropriate?
>
> cp -a -r /mnt/old_sys /home
>
> Will that give me what I want? I need to know pretty soon as I want to do
> this install on the weekend. Thanks.
You could disconnect the FC3 system, install the FC5 onto the new HD
Then reconnect the FC3 system as hdb and reboot
Then if /home is on /dev/hdb2 and ext3 fs
$ mount -t ext3 /dev/hdb2 /mnt/old_sys
$ cp -p /mnt/old_sys/home /home
It's a lot easier to disconnect the FC3. IRC correctly Grub-install (FC5)
gets confused when there's two /boot partitions. So install FC5 first
then mount the FC3 drive and copy the files.
Ohmster
news:xvoTg.6730$e66....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
> You could disconnect the FC3 system, install the FC5 onto the new HD
> Then reconnect the FC3 system as hdb and reboot
> Then if /home is on /dev/hdb2 and ext3 fs
>
> $ mount -t ext3 /dev/hdb2 /mnt/old_sys
>
> $ cp -p /mnt/old_sys/home /home
>
> It's a lot easier to disconnect the FC3. IRC correctly Grub-install
> (FC5) gets confused when there's two /boot partitions. So install FC5
> first then mount the FC3 drive and copy the files.
>
Yeah I am going to do that. Disconnect the old drive, connect the new empty
one, and install FC5 to that. The copy command looks good with the -p flag,
but don't I need the -r flag as well to get all the subdirectories in the
home dirs?
Walter Mautner
> Hi. I want to install Fedora Core 5 on a new hard drive and have a
> current Fedora Core 3 system that I want to keep and pluck from, once
> the new system is in place on a new hard drive. I will install a new
> hard drive in the machine and then do an FC5 install. What I intend to
> do after that is to copy all of the original /home directories over to
> the new disc from the old disc. I will mount the original FC3 disk as
> /mnt/old_sys and would then like to restore the home directories over
> to the new disk. How can I do this and maintain ownership of the
> files, their directory structures, and permissions on the files? Is
> this command appropriate?
>
> cp -a -r /mnt/old_sys /home
>
It will work if you have mounted your old /home under old_sys. If you
have the root of the fc3 mounted, you want go a level deeper.
However, root usually has his home in / and that's fine to not copy
roots home with all the settings.
Now, if you have done copying, make sure your users do have the same
userids on both systems.
Still there are problems left when updated utils try to work with the
old configuration files.
--
vista policy violation: Microsoft optical mouse found penguin patterns
on mousepad. Partition scan in progress to remove offending
incompatible products. Reactivate MS software.
Linux 2.6.17-mm1,Xorg7.1/nvidia [LinuxCounter#295241,ICQ#4918962]
johnny bobby bee
> Oh duh! What an oversight. Yep, that is what I want, thanks Aho.
> I don't need the -r switch to be recursive as the home directories do have
> public_html directories in them?
>
man cp -- you'll see that the -a switch is the same as -dpR. so, you're
covered for recursive.
--
Death rays don't kill people, people kill people!!
noi
> noi <n...@siam.com> wrote in
> news:xvoTg.6730$e66....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
>
>> You could disconnect the FC3 system, install the FC5 onto the new HD
>> Then reconnect the FC3 system as hdb and reboot Then if /home is on
>> /dev/hdb2 and ext3 fs
>>
>> $ mount -t ext3 /dev/hdb2 /mnt/old_sys
>>
>> $ cp -p /mnt/old_sys/home /home
>>
>> It's a lot easier to disconnect the FC3. IRC correctly Grub-install
>> (FC5) gets confused when there's two /boot partitions. So install FC5
>> first then mount the FC3 drive and copy the files.
>>
>>
> Yeah I am going to do that. Disconnect the old drive, connect the new
> empty one, and install FC5 to that. The copy command looks good with the
> -p flag, but don't I need the -r flag as well to get all the
> subdirectories in the home dirs?
Yes or the "-a"
$ mount -t ext3 /dev/hdb2 /mnt/old_sys
$ cp -a /mnt/old_sys/home /home
$ info cp
Mostly I wanted to point out the mount point.
I just did the cp last week except I mounted /dev/hdb to
/home/noi/newhome and wondered why I kept running out of space on the
brand new twice as big HD.
J.O. Aho
> $ cp -a /mnt/old_sys/home /home
This is a bit bad, as you will get the following tree
/home/home/
do instead:
cp -a /mnt/old_sys/home/* /home
//Aho
Ohmster
news:45h1v3-...@woodpecker.woodpecker.fdns.net:
>> cp -a -r /mnt/old_sys /home
>>
> It will work if you have mounted your old /home under old_sys. If you
> have the root of the fc3 mounted, you want go a level deeper.
> However, root usually has his home in / and that's fine to not copy
> roots home with all the settings.
> Now, if you have done copying, make sure your users do have the same
> userids on both systems.
Oh yeah.... The user ID thing.
> Still there are problems left when updated utils try to work with the
> old configuration files.
Well, gotta start somewhere. Thanks for the tip.
Ohmster
news:slrnehtafi...@wizard.dyndns.org:
> Oh yeah, you've done the upgrade dance numerous
> times before. Take what you learned last time, and
> the time before that, and the time before that,
> and simply apply it to THIS upgrade.
>
> If you can't learn from experience, what makes you
> think you can learn from asking the same questions
> over and over? Troll.
>
> <PLONK>
So judgemental, what's up with that? A Steve Ackman plonk? How did I get so
lucky? :)
Ohmster
Agreed, thanks for pointing that out, Aho.
Ohmster
$N4.3664@clgrps12:
> man cp -- you'll see that the -a switch is the same as -dpR. so, you're
> covered for recursive.
>
-a, --archive
same as -dpR
Ahhh, so it is. Thank you john.
Michael Heiming
> In <Xns984E81FF5C...@81.174.50.80>, on Sat, 30 Sep 2006
>> Walter Mautner <leafnewnode....@spamgourmet.com> wrote in
>>> Now, if you have done copying, make sure your users do have the same
>>> userids on both systems.
>> Oh yeah.... The user ID thing.
> Oh yeah, you've done the upgrade dance numerous
> times before. Take what you learned last time, and
> the time before that, and the time before that,
> and simply apply it to THIS upgrade.
> If you can't learn from experience, what makes you
> think you can learn from asking the same questions
> over and over? Troll.
Others might pick up things faster and perhaps the OP is re asking
the same questions a few times, but I highly doubt he'd be a
troll. Perhaps Linux dyslexic, if there is such thing? But hardly
a troll...
> <PLONK>
Good idea, if someone gets to much on your nerves, simply
killfile the dude out of your view. It can make life easier in
some aspects. ;-)
Which makes you think why so many people restrict themselves to the
poor groups.google interface? Nice for searching but it must be a
pita to post with it and should lack almost all features any
serious nntp client has to offer.
One wouldn't user a sledgehammer to get a screw into the wall?
There seems to be some difference with software? You see people
insisting on a wikipedia interface through M$-Word and alike.
--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvp...@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 160: non-redundant fan failure
Jesper H. Cheetah
> No, this will copy the old_sys directory with everything inside it to /home,
> not what you want.example: /home/old_sys/tmp /home/old_sys/home and so on...
>
> as a root user:
> cp -a /mnt/old_sys/home/* /home/
Wouldn't that omit dot-files? Afaik the shell only expands asterisk to
non-dot-files:
user@host ~ $ mkdir test
user@host ~ $ cd test
user@host ~/test $ touch .dotfile
user@host ~/test $ touch nondotfile
user@host ~/test $ echo *
nondotfile
user@host ~/test $
--
|\_/| ,(Meow) Jesper H. Cheetah <xyborx...@xyborx.dk>
(^.^)
`^' Sanity is an illusion
Johan Lindquist
Jesper H. Cheetah was all like, "Dude,
> On 2006-09-30, J.O. Aho wrote:
>> as a root user:
>> cp -a /mnt/old_sys/home/* /home/
>
> Wouldn't that omit dot-files? Afaik the shell only expands asterisk
> to non-dot-files:
True, but how many dotfiles do you normally have in /home? All the
files in /home/foo and /home/bar will still be copied, regardless of
their dotness.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
23:26:07 up 8 days, 4:42, 4 users, load average: 0.22, 0.18, 0.11
Linux 2.6.17.13 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729
Jesper H. Cheetah
> So anyway, it was like, 22:23 CEST Sep 30 2006, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
> Jesper H. Cheetah was all like, "Dude,
>> On 2006-09-30, J.O. Aho wrote:
>
>>> as a root user:
>>> cp -a /mnt/old_sys/home/* /home/
>>
>> Wouldn't that omit dot-files? Afaik the shell only expands asterisk
>> to non-dot-files:
>
> True, but how many dotfiles do you normally have in /home? All the
> files in /home/foo and /home/bar will still be copied, regardless of
> their dotness.
>
Ah, right, I was thinking more in the lines of /home/user/*. Still
though, for completeness I would prefer a method that would include
dot-files, even if the particular system I'm currently using doesn't
have any there.
Bit Twister
>
> Ah, right, I was thinking more in the lines of /home/user/*. Still
> though, for completeness I would prefer a method that would include
> dot-files, even if the particular system I'm currently using doesn't
> have any there.
Well, a
su -l root
cd /home
cp -a /etc/skel aa
cd aa
ls -al
drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 1,024 Sep 30 17:32 ..
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 109 Sep 17 11:19 .bash_logout
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 24 Aug 24 10:05 .bash_logout_orig
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 352 Sep 17 11:19 .bash_profile
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 376 Aug 24 10:05 .bash_profile_orig
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 329 Sep 17 11:19 .bashrc
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 124 Aug 24 10:05 .bashrc_orig
drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 1,024 Sep 17 11:20 .cron
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1,306 Sep 17 11:22 .edt-gnu-The-X.Org-Foundation-X-keys
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 277 Sep 17 11:19 .emacs
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 372 Sep 17 11:19 .indent.pro
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 1,024 Sep 10 20:59 lisp
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 1,024 Sep 17 16:41 .mdk-folders
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Sep 17 11:19 .mdv-no_kat
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3,793 Sep 18 20:20 .screenrc
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 257 Sep 17 11:19 .signature
drwx------ 2 root root 1,024 Sep 17 16:40 .ssh
drwx------ 2 root root 1,024 Oct 19 2005 tmp
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1,853 Sep 17 11:19 .Xdefaults
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 1,024 Sep 13 13:12 .xemacs
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7,531 Sep 17 11:19 .Xresources
Seems to indicate dot files were created
Chris F.A. Johnson
> Jesper H. Cheetah was all like, "Dude,
>> On 2006-09-30, J.O. Aho wrote:
>
>>> as a root user:
>>> cp -a /mnt/old_sys/home/* /home/
>>
>> Wouldn't that omit dot-files? Afaik the shell only expands asterisk
>> to non-dot-files:
>
> True,
Unles dotglob is set:
shopt -s dotglob
> but how many dotfiles do you normally have in /home?
$ ls -ad .* | wc -l
349
> All the files in /home/foo and /home/bar will still be copied,
> regardless of their dotness.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson, author | <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
Shell Scripting Recipes: | My code in this post, if any,
A Problem-Solution Approach | is released under the
2005, Apress | GNU General Public Licence
noi
> On 2006-09-30, Johan Lindquist wrote:
>> So anyway, it was like, 22:23 CEST Sep 30 2006, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
>> Jesper H. Cheetah was all like, "Dude,
>>> On 2006-09-30, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>
>>>> as a root user:
>>>> cp -a /mnt/old_sys/home/* /home/
>>>
>>> Wouldn't that omit dot-files? Afaik the shell only expands asterisk to
>>> non-dot-files:
>>
>> True,
>
> Unles dotglob is set:
>
> shopt -s dotglob
>
>> but how many dotfiles do you normally have in /home?
>
> $ ls -ad .* | wc -l
> 349
>
>
>> All the files in /home/foo and /home/bar will still be copied,
>> regardless of their dotness.
Yeah I only got 125 in ~/ on this system.
Michael Heiming
> On 2006-09-30, Johan Lindquist wrote:
>> So anyway, it was like, 22:23 CEST Sep 30 2006, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
>> Jesper H. Cheetah was all like, "Dude,
>>> On 2006-09-30, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>>> as a root user:
>>>> cp -a /mnt/old_sys/home/* /home/
>>> Wouldn't that omit dot-files? Afaik the shell only expands asterisk
>>> to non-dot-files:
>> True,
> Unles dotglob is set:
> shopt -s dotglob
>> but how many dotfiles do you normally have in /home?
> $ ls -ad .* | wc -l
> 349
Doubt that, the question was in /home, not in your *users* $HOME.
$ cd /home
$ ls -ad .* | wc -l
2
Guess those are "." and "..".
$ cd
$ ls -ad .* | wc -l
451
--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvp...@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 437: crop circles in the corn shell
Robert Hull
<cfajo...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.os.linux:
> On 2006-09-30, Johan Lindquist wrote:
>> but how many dotfiles do you normally have in /home?
>
> $ ls -ad .* | wc -l
> 349
You do not show anything to indicate that you have done that in /home
rather than in /home/<username>
Even supposing that you do have 347 dot files in /home, this would only
indicate that you have a nonstandard installation. Since you are
running at a level of expertise well beyond that of the OP, one would
expect you to have taken measures to cope with your nonstandard file
hierarchy.
--
Robert HULL
Archival or publication of this article on any part of thisishull.net
is without consent and is in direct breach of the Data Protection Act
Robert Hull
alt.os.linux:
Problem is ~/ is *not* /home it is /home/<username> so your 125 files
would have been included in cp -a /home/* /new_home as stated above
noi
> On Sunday 01 October 2006 03:32, noi <n...@siam.com> wrote in alt.os.linux:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 19:36:08 -0400, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote this:
>>
>>> On 2006-09-30, Johan Lindquist wrote:
>>>> but how many dotfiles do you normally have in /home?
>>>
>>> $ ls -ad .* | wc -l
>>> 349
>>>
>>>
>>>> All the files in /home/foo and /home/bar will still be copied,
>>>> regardless of their dotness.
>>
>> Yeah I only got 125 in ~/ on this system.
>
> Problem is ~/ is *not* /home it is /home/<username> so your 125 files
> would have been included in cp -a /home/* /new_home as stated above
Plz its minor question of cp -a /home vs cp -a /home/*
or to appease purists cp -a /mnt/sys_old/home/user /home
FTR, ~/ is a subdirectory under /home so ls -R /home should include the
125 files in my ~/ folder.
>On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 09:47:48 +0100, Robert Hull wrote this:
> You do not show anything to indicate that you have done that in /home
> rather than in /home/<username>
>
> Even supposing that you do have 347 dot files in /home, this would only
> indicate that you have a nonstandard installation. Since you are running
> at a level of expertise well beyond that of the OP, one would expect you
> to have taken measures to cope with your nonstandard file hierarchy.
That's ridiculous. Just because I use Beagle doesn't exclude the .mutt,
.xine, .xmms, .gconfd, .gnome, .kde the OP might have in his ~/
sub-folder of /home
The only file I have in /home is lost+found everything else is a folder.
Johan Lindquist
Chris F.A. Johnson was all like, "Dude,
> On 2006-09-30, Johan Lindquist wrote:
>> So anyway, it was like, 22:23 CEST Sep 30 2006, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
>> Jesper H. Cheetah was all like, "Dude,
>>> On 2006-09-30, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>>> cp -a /mnt/old_sys/home/* /home/
>>>
>>> Wouldn't that omit dot-files? Afaik the shell only expands
>>> asterisk to non-dot-files:
>>
>> True,
>
> Unles dotglob is set:
>
> shopt -s dotglob
I stand corrected.
>> but how many dotfiles do you normally have in /home?
>
> $ ls -ad .* | wc -l
> 349
Me, I have exactly three using that same search, one is .keep which
tells portage not to delete /home even if there are no other files
left belonging to any package. Were I copying my old /home to a new
gentoo install, it'd already be there at the destination. The other
two are . and .., neither of which I'd wish to have included in the
process under discussion.
Are you using /home as your $HOME to have so many, or am I missing
some other subtlety besides the 'shopt' one?
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
11:32:47 up 8 days, 16:49, 4 users, load average: 0.04, 0.11, 0.08
Johan Lindquist
Jesper H. Cheetah was all like, "Dude,
> On 2006-09-30, Johan Lindquist wrote:
>> So anyway, it was like, 22:23 CEST Sep 30 2006, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
>> Jesper H. Cheetah was all like, "Dude,
>>> On 2006-09-30, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>>> as a root user:
>>>> cp -a /mnt/old_sys/home/* /home/
>>>
>>> Wouldn't that omit dot-files? Afaik the shell only expands
>>> asterisk to non-dot-files:
>>
>> True, but how many dotfiles do you normally have in /home? All the
>> files in /home/foo and /home/bar will still be copied, regardless
>> of their dotness.
>
> Ah, right, I was thinking more in the lines of /home/user/*. Still
> though, for completeness I would prefer a method that would include
> dot-files, even if the particular system I'm currently using doesn't
> have any there.
You could just use tar.
'cd $SRC && tar cf - . | ( cd $DEST && tar xpf - )'
Will even work over ssh if you're transferring to a remote host.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
11:39:58 up 8 days, 16:56, 4 users, load average: 0.54, 0.25, 0.14
Robert Hull
alt.os.linux:
> On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 09:50:05 +0100, Robert Hull wrote this:
>
>> On Sunday 01 October 2006 03:32, noi <n...@siam.com> wrote in
>> alt.os.linux:
>>
>>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 19:36:08 -0400, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote this:
>>>
>>>> On 2006-09-30, Johan Lindquist wrote:
>>>>> but how many dotfiles do you normally have in /home?
>>>>
>>>> $ ls -ad .* | wc -l
>>>> 349
>
>> You do not show anything to indicate that you have done that in /home
>> rather than in /home/<username>
>>
>> Even supposing that you do have 347 dot files in /home, this would
>> only indicate that you have a nonstandard installation. Since you are
>> running at a level of expertise well beyond that of the OP, one would
>> expect you to have taken measures to cope with your nonstandard file
>> hierarchy.
>
> That's ridiculous. Just because I use Beagle doesn't exclude the
> .mutt, .xine, .xmms, .gconfd, .gnome, .kde the OP might have in his ~/
> sub-folder of /home
Why are you so intent on proving that you are too stupid to understand
that what is in a *subdirectory* is not in the directory itself?
Take another look at what you have in /home instead of the
*subdirectory* that you have been using.
>
> The only file I have in /home is lost+found everything else is a
> folder.
You do not have any folders, only subdirectories.
You recognise that there are no dotfiles on /home, yet you persist in
your argument againsty those who say so.
J.O. Aho
>> The only file I have in /home is lost+found everything else is a
>> folder.
> You do not have any folders, only subdirectories.
>
> You recognise that there are no dotfiles on /home, yet you persist in
> your argument againsty those who say so.
Everything in Linux is a file :P
We have to thank microsoft for creating new names for something that have had
names for a long long time before microsoft was doing criminal acts.
microsoft speak "folder" = Computer speak "subdirectory"
//Aho
Chris F.A. Johnson
> Robert Hull wrote:
>
>>> The only file I have in /home is lost+found everything else is a
>>> folder.
>> You do not have any folders, only subdirectories.
>>
>> You recognise that there are no dotfiles on /home, yet you persist in
>> your argument againsty those who say so.
>
> Everything in Linux is a file :P
Not so. Everything is a stream of bytes. A file is one example of
stream of bytes. Many of these also have representations as a file.
Chris F.A. Johnson
> So anyway, it was like, 01:36 CEST Oct 01 2006, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
> Chris F.A. Johnson was all like, "Dude,
>>> but how many dotfiles do you normally have in /home?
>>
>> $ ls -ad .* | wc -l
>> 349
> Are you using /home as your $HOME to have so many, or am I missing
> some other subtlety besides the 'shopt' one?
No, I misread the question as "how many dotfiles do you normally
have in HOME?"
noi
So someone who wants to know how to copy all of his files from old_home to
new_home should realize that every file on the linux system is a file? Is
this user that spends his time in xterm or in KDE or Gnome?
He still has to go the file /home to get to all his files.
Or should he follow all the inodes in that file to get to all the inodes
of all the other files?
Can he just copy the oldhome to the newhome ? Yes
Will he have /home/home? Yes
Can mv /home/home/user to /home? Yes
Is it a big deal? Apparently only to you.
Robert Hull
alt.os.linux:
> On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 17:38:00 +0100, Robert Hull wrote this:
>
>>
>> You recognise that there are no dotfiles on /home, yet you persist in
>> your argument againsty those who say so.
>
> So someone who wants to know how to copy all of his files from
> old_home to
> new_home should realize that every file on the linux system is a file?
Where did I say that?
> Is this user that spends his time in xterm or in KDE or Gnome?
Every user of a Linux system has a /home/<username> directory
> He still has to go the file /home to get to all his files.
If he goes looking for his files in /home, he will not find them - inly
the <username> subdirectories
>
> Or should he follow all the inodes in that file to get to all the
> inodes of all the other files?
You have already buried yourself way above your head - stop digging.
>
> Can he just copy the oldhome to the newhome ? Yes
Yes
>
> Will he have /home/home? Yes
No.
cp -a /home/* /newhome
will not create a /newhome/home
Neither will it omit any dotfiles as you were earlier trying to claim
>
> Can mv /home/home/user to /home? Yes
No he cannot because it will not exist
>
> Is it a big deal? Apparently only to you.
I am not the one who has been trying to claim that
cp -a /home/* /newhome
would miss essential dotfiles - that was *you*
Chris F.A. Johnson
> On Sunday 01 October 2006 23:34, noi <n...@siam.com> wrote in
> alt.os.linux:
>
>> On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 17:38:00 +0100, Robert Hull wrote this:
>>
>>>
>>> You recognise that there are no dotfiles on /home, yet you persist in
>>> your argument againsty those who say so.
>>
>> So someone who wants to know how to copy all of his files from
>> old_home to
>> new_home should realize that every file on the linux system is a file?
>
> Where did I say that?
>
>> Is this user that spends his time in xterm or in KDE or Gnome?
>
> Every user of a Linux system has a /home/<username> directory
Most do; there is nothing preventing users' home directories being
put somewhere else.
>> He still has to go the file /home to get to all his files.
>
> If he goes looking for his files in /home, he will not find them - inly
> the <username> subdirectories
>>
>> Or should he follow all the inodes in that file to get to all the
>> inodes of all the other files?
>
> You have already buried yourself way above your head - stop digging.
>>
>> Can he just copy the oldhome to the newhome ? Yes
>
> Yes
>>
>> Will he have /home/home? Yes
>
> No.
Maybe.
> cp -a /home/* /newhome
>
> will not create a /newhome/home
It will if /home/home exists.
> Neither will it omit any dotfiles as you were earlier trying to claim
It will omit any dotfiles that are in /home itself; there should
be few if any. It will not omit any in subdirectories of /home.
>> Can mv /home/home/user to /home? Yes
>
> No he cannot because it will not exist
It certainly could exist.
>>
>> Is it a big deal? Apparently only to you.
>
> I am not the one who has been trying to claim that
>
> cp -a /home/* /newhome
>
> would miss essential dotfiles - that was *you*
If there are any dotfiles in /home, it will omit them.
Robert Hull
<cfajo...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.os.linux:
> On 2006-10-02, Robert Hull wrote:
>> On Sunday 01 October 2006 23:34, noi <n...@siam.com> wrote in
>> alt.os.linux:
>>
>>> On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 17:38:00 +0100, Robert Hull wrote this:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You recognise that there are no dotfiles on /home, yet you persist
>>>> in your argument againsty those who say so.
>>>
>>> So someone who wants to know how to copy all of his files from
>>> old_home to
>>> new_home should realize that every file on the linux system is a
>>> file?
>>
>> Where did I say that?
>>
>>> Is this user that spends his time in xterm or in KDE or Gnome?
>>
>> Every user of a Linux system has a /home/<username> directory
>
> Most do; there is nothing preventing users' home directories being
> put somewhere else.
>
>>> He still has to go the file /home to get to all his files.
>>
>> If he goes looking for his files in /home, he will not find them -
>> inly the <username> subdirectories
>>>
[snip]
>>>
>>> Can he just copy the oldhome to the newhome ? Yes
>>
>> Yes
>>>
>>> Will he have /home/home? Yes
>>
>> No.
>
> Maybe.
Chris, I respect your knowledge of scripting and other things, but you
seem intent in this thread upon introducing irrelevancies which serve
no useful purpose to the original poster. I *could* - if I so desired
create a directory (or even a soft link) called
/home/home/home/be_it_ever_so_humble_theres_no_place_like/home
But do you *honestly* believe that I would be naive enough not to
understand that this would exist after I had created it? Or perhaps you
*really do* think that the OP has done this without knowing it, so in
telling him that
cp -a /home/* /newhome
will copy everything that he should have in /home to newhome without
missing anything (in the case of a standard installation) and without
creating spurious subdirectory structures that I am deliberately
seeking to mislead the OP ?
Can you in all honesty tell me that someone like the OP who has done a
*standard* installation of (almost any distribution of) Linux needs to
be worried that the cp -a command I quote above will leave out some
vital file that the install had placed _directly under_ /home?
Or perhaps, with hand on heart, you can tell me that this person needs
to worry that cp -a will suddenly create spurious sub directories as
noi was trying to claim?
Funnily enough, the whole furore was sparked by you responding to a
question about how many dotfiles were to be found directly under /home
by telling us how many dotfiles you had in $HOME
Then noi seemed to feel that he could justify his existence by disputing
those who pointed out that a *standard instalation of (almost any
distribution of) Linux would not *normally* contain any dotfiles let
alone the 347 that you had appeared to claim.
>
>> cp -a /home/* /newhome
>>
>> will not create a /newhome/home
>
> It will if /home/home exists.
This time you are merely playing semantics. True, every subdirectory
copied will be "created" within the new hierarchy, but even you must
have understood the implicit word "spontaneously".
The person to whom I was responding, was trying to suggest that *in the
absence of /home/home* the solutions already proposed would
*necessarily* create /newhome/home - this was what I was trying to
combat, but by all means continue obfuscating the attempts to help the
OP. Assuming of course that he has not got fed up of all the bickering
that followed your misinterpretation of the question about how many
dotfiles would normally be found in /home
>
>> Neither will it omit any dotfiles as you were earlier trying to claim
>
> It will omit any dotfiles that are in /home itself; there should
> be few if any. It will not omit any in subdirectories of /home.
Here it is you who is being incomplete in your attempt to "clarify" what
I wrote. Given that we had already introduced the idea of dotglob, (BTW
remind me who introduced that into the thread?) it is not true to say
that
cp -a /home/* /newhome
will necessarily miss out any of your putative (and non standard)
dotfiles that allegedly reside directly within /home.
>> I am not the one who has been trying to claim that
>>
>> cp -a /home/* /newhome
>>
>> would miss essential dotfiles - that was *you*
>
> If there are any dotfiles in /home, it will omit them.
>
No it won't because I used dotglob. Hows that for introducing
assumptions not previously in evidence? You are not the only one who
can play that game.
noi
I was being sardonic !! I'm not surprised you didn't understand that.
Whoever pointed out /home was not the same as ~/ was the one trying to
justify their existence.
Evidently someone thought the OP asked for help because the OP had
trouble copying "only" the FILE /home from the old HD to overlay the
new FILE /home on the new HD.