Re: [fossil-users] tar file is different then zip file

2011-07-21 Thread Rene
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 16:44:17 -0700 (PDT), Gé Weijers wrote: I have submitted a bug report on this issue. The 'tar' format has been extended over the years, and it's now a fairly interesting mess. File names over 100 bytes are split into two. Posix requires this to be done at a '/' (which you

Re: [fossil-users] tar file is different then zip file

2011-07-21 Thread Gé Weijers
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Rene wrote: Thanks for the bug report. I wonder are you able to get the same (mis)behavior out of fossil as I did out of my repository? Yes, it's reproducible. Once the file path length goes over 100 characters the file quite reliably does not come out right. All the

Re: [fossil-users] tar file is different then zip file

2011-07-20 Thread Gé Weijers
I have submitted a bug report on this issue. The 'tar' format has been extended over the years, and it's now a fairly interesting mess. File names over 100 bytes are split into two. Posix requires this to be done at a '/' (which you can delete). Fossil splits it anywhere, which confuses all

[fossil-users] tar file is different then zip file

2011-07-18 Thread Rene
I have converted a cvs repo to fossil. I checked if the tag release_v5_1_0 would yield the same number of files as you can see from this timeline fragment it is version 186f4fdca4 [186f4fdca4] brokerhost geintroduceert * Upd mxflex/gbo/app_po.inc: 1.39 * Upd mxflex/gbo/app_bo.inc: 1.36

Re: [fossil-users] tar file is different then zip file

2011-07-18 Thread Richard Hipp
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Rene renew...@xs4all.nl wrote: I have converted a cvs repo to fossil. I checked if the tag release_v5_1_0 would yield the same number of files as you can see from this timeline fragment it is version 186f4fdca4 [186f4fdca4] brokerhost geintroduceert

Re: [fossil-users] tar file is different then zip file

2011-07-18 Thread Rene
On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:38:07 -0400, Richard Hipp wrote: On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Rene wrote: I have converted a cvs repo to fossil. I checked if the tag release_v5_1_0 would yield the same number of files as you can see from this timeline fragment it is version 186f4fdca4        

Re: [fossil-users] tar file is different then zip file

2011-07-18 Thread Richard Hipp
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Rene renew...@xs4all.nl wrote: It must be something specific for this repo because if I do a tarball from my local copy of fossil (hence the same version) I don't see multiple directories. What version of Fossil are you running on the server, and what

Re: [fossil-users] tar file is different then zip file

2011-07-18 Thread Rene
On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:15:50 -0400, Richard Hipp wrote: On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Rene wrote: It must be something specific for this repo because if I do a tarball from my local copy of fossil (hence the same version) I don't see multiple directories. What version of Fossil are

Re: [fossil-users] tar file is different then zip file

2011-07-18 Thread Rene
On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:15:50 -0400, Richard Hipp wrote: On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Rene wrote: It must be something specific for this repo because if I do a tarball from my local copy of fossil (hence the same version) I don't see multiple directories. What version of Fossil are

Re: [fossil-users] tar file is different then zip file

2011-07-18 Thread Rene
On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:15:50 -0400, Richard Hipp wrote: On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Rene wrote: It must be something specific for this repo because if I do a tarball from my local copy of fossil (hence the same version) I don't see multiple directories. What version of Fossil are

Re: [fossil-users] tar file is different then zip file

2011-07-18 Thread Gé Weijers
The old tar 'v7' format only supports file names up to 99 characters, according to the GNU tar documentation. The check in 'tar_add_header' (tar.c) checks for nName 100. The file name that gets mangled is exactly 100 chars long Gé On Mon, 18 Jul 2011, Rene wrote: On Mon, 18 Jul 2011