On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 22:19:12 -0800, Paul Eggert <egg...@cs.ucla.edu> wrote: > On 11/10/2010 10:14 PM, Bdale Garbee wrote: > > On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 21:59:03 -0800, Paul Eggert <egg...@cs.ucla.edu> wrote: > >> This file name is exactly 100 bytes long, and if I recall, that used > >> to be a problem area in GNU tar. The 1.24 tarball contains a longlink > >> representation of the file (which isn't right), whereas the 1.23 tarball > >> is right. > > > > Ugh. Smoking gun. I was carrying a patch around for ages to try and > > work around this bug, which tripped a bug in dpkg for a while. Finally > > realized it was no longer needed and removed it from my build of 1.24. > > Ah, sorry, I'm a bit confused. Is your theory that this age-old patch > broke 1.24?
My theory is that every version of Debian tar for quite a while was "broken", and 1.24 is when it got "right" again. I'll work with Joey on this some more tomorrow and see if we can confirm that. > If so, we don't need to do anything upstream. If not, then please let us > know (for example, what patch is it, and what test case illustrates the > need for the patch). I think you've given us the clue we needed to fix our problem, we'll be back if not. Thanks! Bdale
pgpbp5guv7B9S.pgp
Description: PGP signature
