Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> confirmed:
> Okay, while you are right that GNU tar somehow does not list it correctly,
> it has no problems extracting it:
>
> [askwar@teich testz]$ tar tfv gtarfail.tar=20
> -rw-r--r-- jes/glone 518 2001-05-25 16:41:06 vedpowered.gif
> tar: Springe zum n=E4chsten Kopfteil.
> -rw-r--r-- jes/glone 33354 1999-06-22 14:17:38 DSCN0049c.JPG
> tar: Springe zum n=E4chsten Kopfteil.
> -rw-r--r-- jes/glone 1310 2001-05-25 15:05:41 vipower.gif
> tar: Springe zum n=E4chsten Kopfteil.
> tar: Fehler beim Beenden, verursacht durch vorhergehende Fehler.
[... snip ...]
> The images display just fine. Tested with GQview, qiv, ee, eog and
> ImageMagick.
>
> Because of that, I'd be REALLY interested in the md5's of the original files
> to see if the files where somehow damaged by the extraction.
>
> Those are the ones I got:
>
> [askwar@teich testz]$ md5sum *
> 43dd24762125dca9ae33addd0beea9be billyboy.jpg
> 4bfd8c2ea953235e4552870f55f38911 cd.gif
> 17af34db6f3248468dbe287f309812c8 DSCN0049c.JPG
> 4a304142604e3c1951e954424d587283 gtarfail.tar
> 798851f98a824a820c60a227b4a554b5 vedpowered.gif
> 374ef8b65acc58cc0aec6a15a141a015 vipower.gif
> 2677817bc2b6c1a66036cdb0ef7c4069 Window1.jpg
>
> Okay, I've now installed your star 1.3a8. Those are the md5sums of the
> files extracted with star:
>
> [askwar@teich star]$ md5sum *
> 43dd24762125dca9ae33addd0beea9be billyboy.jpg
> 4bfd8c2ea953235e4552870f55f38911 cd.gif
> 17af34db6f3248468dbe287f309812c8 DSCN0049c.JPG
> 4a304142604e3c1951e954424d587283 gtarfail.tar
> 798851f98a824a820c60a227b4a554b5 vedpowered.gif
> 374ef8b65acc58cc0aec6a15a141a015 vipower.gif
> 2677817bc2b6c1a66036cdb0ef7c4069 Window1.jpg
>
> As you can see, the files are identical, although tar was not able to list
> them.
>
> Further, I tried your mk and mk2 scripts with tar and star. You are right,
> star is able to process file names which are not POSIX conformant while tar
> fails on those files.
>
> Conclusion (for me): Nothing bad at all. While GNU tar has problems with
> very long file names and also fails to list a POSIX correct tar archive,
> it's nothing I'd worry about. As long as files are extracted correctly, I'm
> fine.
Yes, I have also noticed that star creates files with portability
problems. For that reason I avoid using it for backups, which I might
have to use on machines without star.
I believe the GNU cpio (yes, cpio) program, using the -Hustar option,
will also generate tar files conforming to POSIX.1 standard, which seem
to work with gtar, Solaris tar, SVR4 tar, BSD tar, etc. If I were
creating a tar file with POSIX conformance I would use that. In general
I use the -Hcrc (SVR4+crc) option, which is non-portable but gives file
level error detection, rather than tape block. Note that I have not
tried them with non-POSIX filenames, as creating a standards conformant
archive of non-standard data seems to be a contradiction, and of dubious
value at best.
Regardless of what you use for backup, be it tar or programs designed
from scratch for backup like 'dump', for software distribution I want
portability over conformance to standards. If the distribution doesn't
work it won't be used, regardless of pedantic conformance to standards.
--
-bill davidsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
