Sergey Poznyakoff ha escrit:
> > 14:16:55 /tmp/tar$ ( ./bootstrap && ./configure && make -j5 ) &> /dev/null
> Thanks, I see the problem now.
Fixed in repository. Please pull.
Regards,
Sergey
Pavel Raiskup ha escrit:
> 14:16:20 /tmp$ rm -rf tar
> 14:16:35 /tmp$ git clone git://git.savannah.gnu.org/tar.git &>/dev/null
> 14:16:53 /tmp$ cd tar
> 14:16:55 /tmp/tar$ ( ./bootstrap && ./configure && make -j5 ) &> /dev/null
Thanks, I see the problem now.
Regards,
Sergey
> ../src/tar -cf test.tar -T FILE
> ../src/tar: configure: Cannot stat: No such file or directory
> ../src/tar: Exiting with failure status due to previous errors
>
> which is kind of what I expected... Are you sure you tried it
> with the latest tar from git head?
Hmm, pretty sure:
14:16:20 /
Hi Pavel,
> .. && do we really need to parse all options? Wouldn't it be better to
> artificially bound the -T FILE parsing power? I mean, this is starting to
> have Turing machine power :)
Well, basically, it provides a convenient way to store tar
command lines into a kind of "configuration fil
> So perhaps tar should allow subsequent (as opposed to recursive) reads of
> the same file?
Ahh, I see now what happens there :), thanks. Yes. That would make
sense.
.. && do we really need to parse all options? Wouldn't it be better to
artificially bound the -T FILE parsing power? I mean, t
Pavel Raiskup ha escrit:
> tar -cvvf test.tar -T LIST1 -T LIST1 -T LIST2
>
> Before these changes, tar failed immediately (before even tried to store
> files defined in LIST1). Now it firstly stores everything from FILE1 and
> then fails (it may take hours to process FILE1 to reach this failu
On Thursday, August 15, 2013 14:30:27 Christian Wetzel wrote:
> What do you mean by 're-definition' ? Mentioning the same file twice ?
I should rather say 'definition' by -T. Example:
tar -cvvf test.tar -T LIST1 -T LIST1 -T LIST2
Before these changes, tar failed immediately (before even tried
What do you mean by 're-definition' ? Mentioning the same file twice ?
> > - the semantics of -T option changed in relation to -C option. I am
> > unable to find any note in changelog that this is expected - so I'm just
> > not sure. Do you really want that?
>
> Actually, yes. I think that -C should affect all options that follow
> it. I indeed failed to list
Hi Pavel,
> - there is one uninitialized variable, patch attached
Thanks a lot!
> - the semantics of -T option changed in relation to -C option. I am
> unable to find any note in changelog that this is expected - so I'm just
> not sure. Do you really want that?
Actually, yes. I think tha
Hi Sergey,
> Just treat warnings as warnings :) Or apply the following patch, which
> I have just pushed to the repository.
thanks, I was able to recompile it - but I wanted exactly that ^^^ push
from you. Thanks a lot for your work.
I'm looking at the patch once again. Basically, I like the i
Hi Pavel,
> Thanks, I'm observing build fails now:
Just treat warnings as warnings :) Or apply the following patch, which
I have just pushed to the repository.
Regards,
Sergey
>From 95d7b37a34c9519b7ccc1063216527ccd2c2f833 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sergey Poznyakoff
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013
> I have installed the following patch, which fixes both the bugs in
> -T handling discovered by Michal and reduces the memory consuption to
> an acceptable level (the bug was reported by Christian).
Thanks, I'm observing build fails now:
...
CC incremen.o
CC list.o
CC m
Hello,
I have installed the following patch, which fixes both the bugs in
-T handling discovered by Michal and reduces the memory consuption to
an acceptable level (the bug was reported by Christian).
Regards,
Sergey
diff --git a/THANKS b/THANKS
index 6459157..c30df33 100644
--- a/THANKS
+++ b/T
14 matches
Mail list logo
