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.
[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
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
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]
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,
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
[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
13 matches
Mail list logo