Henrik Grubbström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What path names did you use to cause the problems?
>
> See my original message for an example.
>
> The problem was that when gnu tar attempted to archive a directory with a
> path longer than NAME_FIELD_SIZE (ie 100 characters), but shorter than
> PREFIX_FIELD_SIZE (ie 155 characters), that ended with a directory
> separator, it would put the entire path in the prefix block, and
> leave the name field empty. Some tar's (eg Solaris') interpret a block
> with an empty name field as the EOT marker.
I don't remember to read this before...
All tar implementations that have been derived from the original tar behave
this way. Star was the first implementation that did behave as documented.
It may be that GNU tar meanwhile does the same as star does......
> My patch makes it try to fit as much as possible of the path into the name
> field, and just the remainder in the prefix.
This is not correct.
The correct treatement is to put only the last path name component into the name
field and the rest into the prefx field if possible.
If this does not fit, try different places to cut the path.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
Bug-tar mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-tar
