stephen joseph butler wrote:
> I don't know if anyone's noticed this yet, but...
>
> in today's OS X update (10.4.9) Apple upgraded their tar package to 1.16.1.
>
> charon:~ admin$ tar --version
> tar (GNU tar) 1.16.1
>
You might want to check which tar you're looking at via "which tar". I get:
I don't know if anyone's noticed this yet, but...
in today's OS X update (10.4.9) Apple upgraded their tar package to 1.16.1.
charon:~ admin$ tar --version
tar (GNU tar) 1.16.1
Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software. You may redistribute copies of it under the te
Koen van der Drift wrote:
> Yes:
>
> ...
> Writing control file...
> Writing package script postinst...
> Writing package script prerm...
> dpkg-deb -b root-gcc42-4.1.-20070221 /sw/fink/10.4/unstable/main/
> binary-darwin-powerpc/languages
> dpkg-deb: building package `gcc42' in `/sw/fink/10.
Yes:
...
Writing control file...
Writing package script postinst...
Writing package script prerm...
dpkg-deb -b root-gcc42-4.1.-20070221 /sw/fink/10.4/unstable/main/
binary-darwin-powerpc/languages
dpkg-deb: building package `gcc42' in `/sw/fink/10.4/unstable/main/
binary-darwin-powerpc/lang
Koen van der Drift wrote:
> No problems with gcc42.
Did you still see "file changed as we read it"? With the patched
version, it should still show up, only as a warning, not an error.
--
Martin
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash
No problems with gcc42.
- Koen.
On Mar 10, 2007, at 5:00 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
> Thanks to a patch written by vasi, there is now an experimental
> version of dpkg which should be compatible with the new tar, that
> is, it should not die even if tar encounters "file changed as we
>
Thanks to a patch written by vasi, there is now an experimental
version of dpkg which should be compatible with the new tar, that is,
it should not die even if tar encounters "file changed as we read
it". I would appreciate some testing on this, particularly from
those of you who managed t
On Mar 3, 2007, at 3:52 AM, Martin Costabel wrote:
> Could those of you who have or had the dpkg-deb failure caused by
> tar-1.16.1 claiming
>
> "file changed as we read it"
>
> please help with debugging this? Based on the outcome of these
> tests, we should be able to decide whether we ne
Let me know if you still need more data points.
Using your diagnostic 'tar',
gcc42 died during packaging [1] (Core Duo, 10.4.8):
Writing control file...
Writing package script postinst...
Writing package script prerm...
dpkg-deb -b root-gcc42-4.1.-20070221
/sw/fink/10.4/unstable/main/binary-
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, David Fang wrote:
> > Because mysql takes not so much time to build compared to gcc4, I
> > tried that one first with the new tar. On my system it build and
> > installed without an error. Right now I am building gcc4. Once that
> > is done in a couple of hours, I will let you
> Because mysql takes not so much time to build compared to gcc4, I
> tried that one first with the new tar. On my system it build and
> installed without an error. Right now I am building gcc4. Once that
> is done in a couple of hours, I will let you know how it went.
Hi all,
Even though I repro
So gcc finally finished, and I got the same error. Here's the output
as requested:
dpkg-deb -b root-gcc4-4.1.-20060617 /sw/fink/10.4/unstable/main/
binary-darwin-powerpc/languages
dpkg-deb: building package `gcc4' in `/sw/fink/10.4/unstable/main/
binary-darwin-powerpc/languages/gcc4_4.1.99
Charles Lepple wrote:
> On 3/3/07, Martin Costabel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Charles Lepple wrote:
>> > Martin,
>> >
>> > I'd be curious to see how far those ctimes are from the current
>> > time(). Can you post your patch?
>>
>> They are just printed out with format %i. To get the real time, y
On 3/3/07, Martin Costabel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Charles Lepple wrote:
> > Martin,
> >
> > I'd be curious to see how far those ctimes are from the current
> > time(). Can you post your patch?
>
> They are just printed out with format %i. To get the real time, you can
> run these numbers thro
Charles Lepple wrote:
> Martin,
>
> I'd be curious to see how far those ctimes are from the current
> time(). Can you post your patch?
They are just printed out with format %i. To get the real time, you can
run these numbers through "/bin/date -r":
% /bin/date -r 1172946146
Sat Mar 3 19:22:26
Martin,
I'd be curious to see how far those ctimes are from the current
time(). Can you post your patch?
On 3/3/07, Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On Mar 3, 2007, at 3:52 AM, Martin Costabel wrote:
>
> > Could those of you who hav
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 3, 2007, at 3:52 AM, Martin Costabel wrote:
> Could those of you who have or had the dpkg-deb failure caused by
> tar-1.16.1 claiming
>
>"file changed as we read it"
>
> please help with debugging this? Based on the outcome of these
> te
On 3/3/07, Martin Costabel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could those of you who have or had the dpkg-deb failure caused by
> tar-1.16.1 claiming
>
>"file changed as we read it"
>
> please help with debugging this?
Sure. I have been rebuilding stuff all morning with this version of
tar, and I ha
Because mysql takes not so much time to build compared to gcc4, I
tried that one first with the new tar. On my system it build and
installed without an error. Right now I am building gcc4. Once that
is done in a couple of hours, I will let you know how it went.
- Koen.
On Mar 3, 2007, at 3
19 matches
Mail list logo
