On 04/26/2013 12:48 PM, Pavel Raiskup wrote: > Hi, I'm just thinking aloud here.. I'm ok with this. > > [SNIP] > > So *ACKing* :) with one simple remark which follows. > >> [....] >> + # The $UID and $GID variables are not portable, so we need to resort >> + # to the POSIX-mandated id(1) utility. Errors in the 'id' calls below >> + # are definitely unexpected, so allow the users to see them (that is, >> + # avoid stderr redirection). >> + am_uid=`id -u || echo unknown` >> + am_gid=`id -g || echo unknown` >> + AC_MSG_CHECKING([whether UID '$am_uid' is supported by ustar format]) >> + if test $am_uid -le $am_max_uid; then >> + AC_MSG_RESULT([yes]) >> + else >> + AC_MSG_RESULT([no]) >> + _am_tools=none >> + fi >> + AC_MSG_CHECKING([whether GID '$am_gid' is supported by ustar format]) >> + if test $am_gid -le $am_max_gid; then >> + AC_MSG_RESULT([yes]) >> + else >> + AC_MSG_RESULT([no]) >> + _am_tools=none >> + fi], > > Here ^^ it would be possible to de-duplicate (just one message to standard > output and little simpler code). But it is just a matter of taste. > Actually, I prefer to keep the checks distinct, and output the problematic UID/GID as well (makes debugging easier). So I'd rather drop the squash-in patch you proposed.
> To make it easier, follows the patch, do not assign me as a co-author. > > I'm also quite afraid of testsuite performance of testsuite - this > check costs more than 6 seconds.. > Wait, you mean the new checks in m4/tar.4m? That can't be right, they should be very fast ... Am I missing something? > Thanks a lot, Pavel > Thanks for all the testing and feedback, Stefano
