Re: 4.1.10 tarball is borked.

2002-09-19 Thread Pier Fumagalli
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.

Re: 4.1.10 tarball is borked.

2002-09-19 Thread Henri Gomez
[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

Re: 4.1.10 tarball is borked.

2002-09-18 Thread Ian Darwin
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

Re: 4.1.10 tarball is borked.

2002-09-18 Thread Jon Scott Stevens
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.

2002-09-17 Thread Ian Darwin
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,

Re: 4.1.10 tarball is borked.

2002-09-17 Thread Pier Fumagalli
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

Re: 4.1.10 tarball is borked.

2002-09-17 Thread Jon Scott Stevens
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

Re: 4.1.10 tarball is borked.

2002-09-17 Thread Jon Scott Stevens
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

Re: 4.1.10 tarball is borked.

2002-09-13 Thread Henri Gomez
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

4.1.10 tarball is borked.

2002-09-12 Thread Pier Fumagalli
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:

Re: 4.1.10 tarball is borked.

2002-09-12 Thread Craig R. McClanahan
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

Re: 4.1.10 tarball is borked.

2002-09-12 Thread Pier Fumagalli
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

Re: 4.1.10 tarball is borked.

2002-09-12 Thread Pier Fumagalli
[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