[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 13.05.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >>"Kai" == Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Kai>> Well, yes. Scan the temp dir after unpacking. If it contains one Kai>> directory and nothing else, that directory is the main package Kai>> directory. If it contains anything else, the temp dir is the main Kai>> package dir. Rename the right directory to the right name and Kai>> place, and if the temp dir is still around, throw it away. > package A:, in A-1.0.tar.gz; > % tar zfx A-1.0.tar.gz > ./B > ./B/C > ./B/C/D > ./B/C/D/1 > ./B/C/D/2 > ./B/C/D/3 > ./B/C/D/4 > ./B/C/D/5 > > Though this is pathological, I have really seen sources on the net > distributed like this (though I don't think current packages have > sources anything this wierd.) Well, we can do one of two things. We can either say that B _is_ the main package dir, or if we don't want that, we can recurse until we find something different than a single dir. Both are easy. > Oh yes, pathanmes with .. components would _also_ break the > algorithm. Of course, those break everything. I'd insist of having no tarballs even in the Debian source archive that contain those. A different problem is absolute path names (/X/Y/Z). GNU tar automatically discards the "/" (which may, in fact, be related to distributions like the above example) on both tarring and untarring, as far as I remember, unless you explicitely tell it not to; but other tars don't. So do we insist on repacking tars with absolute path names? MfG Kai -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
