On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Dave Reisner <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 01:01:35PM +1000, Allan McRae wrote: >> On 29/06/11 10:58, Dan McGee wrote: >> >We fubar-ed this pretty good. >> > >> >1. The whole old/new move shuffle was totally busted if you used a >> >relative path to your database, as we would just build the database in >> >place. >> >2. Our prior temp directory layout had the database files extracted >> >directly into it. When we tried to create a xxx.db.tar.gz file in this >> >same directory, due to the fact that we were no longer using a shell >> >wildcard, we tried to include the db in ourself, which is a big failure. >> >Fix all this by extracting to tree/ so we can have a clean top-level >> >temp directory. >> >3. Fix the inclusion of the './' directory entry; ensure the regex >> >prunes both leading paths of '.' as well as './'. >> > >> >Where is that test suite again? >> > >> >Signed-off-by: Dan McGee<[email protected]> >> >> Signed-off-by: Allan >> >> Updating my repo without this patch resulted in fun! >> >> > > I think we axed this as well. The tarball gets all out of order > (directories first), so we're going to go with my original patch that > Dan Nack'ed, which was to use "ugly" bash... > > (shopt -s nullgob; files=(*); ((${#files[*]}))) > > almost lispy...
No, we axed just the bsdtar bit, not the rest of it. Creating a tar file in the same directory as the files you are archiving is not really a good idea ever, even if some crappy shell expansion avoids it. It clearly burned us once, so I'm not having it burn us again. -Dan
