Re: 4.1.10 tarball is borked.
On Wednesday, September 18, 2002, at 11:35 PM, Ian Darwin wrote: They admit that they aren't POSIX conformant, and claim that they will be, and will do it in a different way than GNUtar does at present. Do you know if this article is up to date? Well I guess it must be, it's on gnu.org. Obviously it would be good if all tars could read each others' archives. [pier@bubbles] ~ $ gnutar --help GNU `tar' saves many files together into a single tape or disk archive, and can restore individual files from the archive. [] Archive format selection: --posixwrite a POSIX conformant archive [...] GNU tar cannot read nor produce `--posix' archives. If POSIXLY_CORRECT is set in the environment, GNU extensions are disallowed with `--posix'. Support for POSIX is only partially implemented, don't count on it yet. [...] [pier@bubbles] ~ $ gnutar --version tar (GNU tar) 1.13 Copyright (C) 1988, 92,93,94,95,96,97,98, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Written by John Gilmore and Jay Fenlason. [pier@bubbles] ~ $ Pier -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 4.1.10 tarball is borked.
[pier@bubbles] ~ $ gnutar --help GNU `tar' saves many files together into a single tape or disk archive, and can restore individual files from the archive. [] Archive format selection: --posixwrite a POSIX conformant archive [...] GNU tar cannot read nor produce `--posix' archives. If POSIXLY_CORRECT is set in the environment, GNU extensions are disallowed with `--posix'. Support for POSIX is only partially implemented, don't count on it yet. [...] [pier@bubbles] ~ $ gnutar --version tar (GNU tar) 1.13 Copyright (C) 1988, 92,93,94,95,96,97,98, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Didn't gnutar is bundled with latest MacOS X ? tar is 1.13.19 on my Redhat 7.2, -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 4.1.10 tarball is borked.
On September 17, 2002 09:20 pm, Jon Scott Stevens wrote: Er, you mean perhaps that BSD tar doesn't yet support the non-standard GNU extensions? Like being able to support simple things like directory paths longer than 255 characters? If it isn't a standard, it should be! Err, I think you mean 100, up to 255 chars. The Posix standard supports this too, but in a different way (of course). GNU claims they were there first, but I know POSIX used to have stuff in committee for a long time, so it's hard to know who was really first. In the article you point out: Interesting history on the issue... http://www.gnu.org/manual/tar/html_node/tar_117.html#SEC112 They admit that they aren't POSIX conformant, and claim that they will be, and will do it in a different way than GNUtar does at present. Do you know if this article is up to date? Well I guess it must be, it's on gnu.org. Obviously it would be good if all tars could read each others' archives. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 4.1.10 tarball is borked.
on 2002/9/18 3:35 PM, Ian Darwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well I guess it must be, it's on gnu.org. http://www.gnu.org/manual/tar/html_node/tar_toc.html -jon -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 4.1.10 tarball is borked.
On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 07:22:43PM -0700, Jon Scott Stevens wrote: Pier, you need to use GNU tar. *BSD* tar sucks balls. Er, you mean perhaps that BSD tar doesn't yet support the non-standard GNU extensions? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 4.1.10 tarball is borked.
Ian Darwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 07:22:43PM -0700, Jon Scott Stevens wrote: Pier, you need to use GNU tar. *BSD* tar sucks balls. Er, you mean perhaps that BSD tar doesn't yet support the non-standard GNU extensions? Nope, it doesn't... I'm thinking whether we should package it up with a standard TAR or the GNU extended version of it... Bah... Pier -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 4.1.10 tarball is borked.
on 2002/9/17 7:01 AM, Ian Darwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Er, you mean perhaps that BSD tar doesn't yet support the non-standard GNU extensions? Like being able to support simple things like directory paths longer than 255 characters? If it isn't a standard, it should be! =) -jon -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 4.1.10 tarball is borked.
on 2002/9/17 7:01 AM, Ian Darwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Er, you mean perhaps that BSD tar doesn't yet support the non-standard GNU extensions? Interesting history on the issue... http://www.gnu.org/manual/tar/html_node/tar_117.html#SEC112 Most OSS projects that I see these days 'standardize' on GNU tar. @see MySQL.com @see default implementation of Ant's tar -jon -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 4.1.10 tarball is borked.
Pier Fumagalli wrote: Whoever packaged the tar gzip distribution didn't check that it was actually _packaged_ properly... I get a few gazillion broken files (noticeably with some beautiful ././@LongLink entries), and with all file names longer than 100 or something characters foobared up... (like: jakarta-tomcat-4.1.10/webapps/tomcat-docs/servletapi/javax/servlet/ServletCo ntextAttributeEvent.html100644) Plus, at the end, I s tar: Invalid header, starting valid header search. tar: End of archive volume 1 reached And thank god that this is supposed to be a _release_ release... (of course no errors in the .zip distribution, remember that WinZip doesn't friggin built correct TAR archives)... The tarballs works since I used them to build rpms -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
4.1.10 tarball is borked.
Whoever packaged the tar gzip distribution didn't check that it was actually _packaged_ properly... I get a few gazillion broken files (noticeably with some beautiful ././@LongLink entries), and with all file names longer than 100 or something characters foobared up... (like: jakarta-tomcat-4.1.10/webapps/tomcat-docs/servletapi/javax/servlet/ServletCo ntextAttributeEvent.html100644) Plus, at the end, I s tar: Invalid header, starting valid header search. tar: End of archive volume 1 reached And thank god that this is supposed to be a _release_ release... (of course no errors in the .zip distribution, remember that WinZip doesn't friggin built correct TAR archives)... Pier -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 4.1.10 tarball is borked.
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote: Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 19:27:31 +0100 From: Pier Fumagalli [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 4.1.10 tarball is borked. Whoever packaged the tar gzip distribution didn't check that it was actually _packaged_ properly... Which file did you try? I just downloaded jakarta-tomcat-4.1.10.tar.gz (dated 30-Aug-2002 06:38) and it worked fine on RedHat 7.2. You're not trying to use Solaris tar by any chance? :-) Craig I get a few gazillion broken files (noticeably with some beautiful ././@LongLink entries), and with all file names longer than 100 or something characters foobared up... (like: jakarta-tomcat-4.1.10/webapps/tomcat-docs/servletapi/javax/servlet/ServletCo ntextAttributeEvent.html100644) Plus, at the end, I s tar: Invalid header, starting valid header search. tar: End of archive volume 1 reached And thank god that this is supposed to be a _release_ release... (of course no errors in the .zip distribution, remember that WinZip doesn't friggin built correct TAR archives)... Pier -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 4.1.10 tarball is borked.
Craig R. McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote: Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 19:27:31 +0100 From: Pier Fumagalli [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 4.1.10 tarball is borked. Whoever packaged the tar gzip distribution didn't check that it was actually _packaged_ properly... Which file did you try? I just downloaded jakarta-tomcat-4.1.10.tar.gz (dated 30-Aug-2002 06:38) and it worked fine on RedHat 7.2. You're not trying to use Solaris tar by any chance? :-) No -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 4.1.10 tarball is borked.
Pier Fumagalli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Craig R. McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote: Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 19:27:31 +0100 From: Pier Fumagalli [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 4.1.10 tarball is borked. Whoever packaged the tar gzip distribution didn't check that it was actually _packaged_ properly... Which file did you try? I just downloaded jakarta-tomcat-4.1.10.tar.gz (dated 30-Aug-2002 06:38) and it worked fine on RedHat 7.2. You're not trying to use Solaris tar by any chance? :-) No Hit return too fast... Doesn't look good with BSD tar (NetBSD and MacOS/X) at all... Older distributions worked fine... Maybe someone changed the way in which the tarballs are built? GNU tar works. Pier -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
