I don't know if anyone's noticed this yet, but...
in today's OS X update (10.4.9) Apple upgraded their tar package to 1.16.1.
charon:~ admin$ tar --version
tar (GNU tar) 1.16.1
Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software. You may redistribute copies of it under the
stephen joseph butler wrote:
I don't know if anyone's noticed this yet, but...
in today's OS X update (10.4.9) Apple upgraded their tar package to 1.16.1.
charon:~ admin$ tar --version
tar (GNU tar) 1.16.1
You might want to check which tar you're looking at via which tar. I get:
$
No problems with gcc42.
- Koen.
On Mar 10, 2007, at 5:00 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
Thanks to a patch written by vasi, there is now an experimental
version of dpkg which should be compatible with the new tar, that
is, it should not die even if tar encounters file changed as we
Koen van der Drift wrote:
No problems with gcc42.
Did you still see file changed as we read it? With the patched
version, it should still show up, only as a warning, not an error.
--
Martin
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash.
Yes:
...
Writing control file...
Writing package script postinst...
Writing package script prerm...
dpkg-deb -b root-gcc42-4.1.-20070221 /sw/fink/10.4/unstable/main/
binary-darwin-powerpc/languages
dpkg-deb: building package `gcc42' in `/sw/fink/10.4/unstable/main/
Koen van der Drift wrote:
Yes:
...
Writing control file...
Writing package script postinst...
Writing package script prerm...
dpkg-deb -b root-gcc42-4.1.-20070221 /sw/fink/10.4/unstable/main/
binary-darwin-powerpc/languages
dpkg-deb: building package `gcc42' in
Thanks to a patch written by vasi, there is now an experimental
version of dpkg which should be compatible with the new tar, that is,
it should not die even if tar encounters file changed as we read
it. I would appreciate some testing on this, particularly from
those of you who managed to
So gcc finally finished, and I got the same error. Here's the output
as requested:
dpkg-deb -b root-gcc4-4.1.-20060617 /sw/fink/10.4/unstable/main/
binary-darwin-powerpc/languages
dpkg-deb: building package `gcc4' in `/sw/fink/10.4/unstable/main/
Because mysql takes not so much time to build compared to gcc4, I
tried that one first with the new tar. On my system it build and
installed without an error. Right now I am building gcc4. Once that
is done in a couple of hours, I will let you know how it went.
Hi all,
Even though I
Let me know if you still need more data points.
Using your diagnostic 'tar',
gcc42 died during packaging [1] (Core Duo, 10.4.8):
Writing control file...
Writing package script postinst...
Writing package script prerm...
dpkg-deb -b root-gcc42-4.1.-20070221
Could those of you who have or had the dpkg-deb failure caused by
tar-1.16.1 claiming
file changed as we read it
please help with debugging this? Based on the outcome of these tests, we
should be able to decide whether we need to patch tar or dpkg, or
whether we need to dig further down.
Because mysql takes not so much time to build compared to gcc4, I
tried that one first with the new tar. On my system it build and
installed without an error. Right now I am building gcc4. Once that
is done in a couple of hours, I will let you know how it went.
- Koen.
On Mar 3, 2007, at
On 3/3/07, Martin Costabel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could those of you who have or had the dpkg-deb failure caused by
tar-1.16.1 claiming
file changed as we read it
please help with debugging this?
Sure. I have been rebuilding stuff all morning with this version of
tar, and I haven't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 3, 2007, at 3:52 AM, Martin Costabel wrote:
Could those of you who have or had the dpkg-deb failure caused by
tar-1.16.1 claiming
file changed as we read it
please help with debugging this? Based on the outcome of these
tests, we
Martin,
I'd be curious to see how far those ctimes are from the current
time(). Can you post your patch?
On 3/3/07, Daniel Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 3, 2007, at 3:52 AM, Martin Costabel wrote:
Could those of you who have or had
Charles Lepple wrote:
Martin,
I'd be curious to see how far those ctimes are from the current
time(). Can you post your patch?
They are just printed out with format %i. To get the real time, you can
run these numbers through /bin/date -r:
% /bin/date -r 1172946146
Sat Mar 3 19:22:26 CET
On 3/3/07, Martin Costabel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Charles Lepple wrote:
Martin,
I'd be curious to see how far those ctimes are from the current
time(). Can you post your patch?
They are just printed out with format %i. To get the real time, you can
run these numbers through /bin/date
Charles Lepple wrote:
On 3/3/07, Martin Costabel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Charles Lepple wrote:
Martin,
I'd be curious to see how far those ctimes are from the current
time(). Can you post your patch?
They are just printed out with format %i. To get the real time, you can
run these
18 matches
Mail list logo
