On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 22:19:12 -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 11/10/2010 10:14 PM, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 21:59:03 -0800, Paul Eggert 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 contain
On 11/10/2010 10:14 PM, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 21:59:03 -0800, Paul Eggert 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),
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 21:59:03 -0800, Paul Eggert 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. Smoki
I cannot reproduce the problem that you observe.
With tar 1.24 and 1.25, I get the
same 60753920-byte file that you generate with tar 1.23.
I also get the same file if I use tar 1.15.1. I am building
tar on RHEL 5.5 (x86-64) with GCC 4.5.1; except that the 1.15.1
tar is that of RHEL 5.5 itself.
>
4 matches
Mail list logo
