Hi Nathan, > This patch works to produce unchanging tar archives in my test case > here (on Linux).
Great. > I was curious if you had a particular reason to use "-1" instead of "0" > here? No particular reason at all, except that it forces start_private_header to use 0 as mtime. Using 0 instead is much better indeed. > (For what it's worth, with [just] this patch, David's scripts will still > detect "phantom" changes in the archives when he first moves from 1.26 > to 1.27, due to the change in the umask field values for these LongLink > entries.) Yes, I know. But that cannot be helped: start_private_header is used in other places where safe umask is important (perhaps in this case too). Regards, Sergey
