On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 9:22 PM Rob Landley wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/15/20 7:45 PM, enh wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 5:21 PM Rob Landley wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10/14/20 3:21 PM, enh wrote:
> >>> i've sent a new fix that just touches dirtree_path() so that it always
> >>> honors the size request
On 10/15/20 7:45 PM, enh wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 5:21 PM Rob Landley wrote:
>>
>> On 10/14/20 3:21 PM, enh wrote:
>>> i've sent a new fix that just touches dirtree_path() so that it always
>>> honors the size request again.
>>
>> Applied, and then cosmetically fiddled with because I
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 5:21 PM Rob Landley wrote:
>
> On 10/14/20 3:21 PM, enh wrote:
> > i've sent a new fix that just touches dirtree_path() so that it always
> > honors the size request again.
>
> Applied, and then cosmetically fiddled with because I do that.
>
> >> but I leave for the
On 10/14/20 3:21 PM, enh wrote:
> i've sent a new fix that just touches dirtree_path() so that it always
> honors the size request again.
Applied, and then cosmetically fiddled with because I do that.
>> but I leave for the airport to fly back to Japan in 2 hours. (Part of the
>> reason I've
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 1:56 AM Rob Landley wrote:
>
> On 10/13/20 4:19 PM, enh via Toybox wrote:
> > tar was assuming the old behavior of dirtree_path() where there was
> > always a spare byte free at the end.
>
> It's not the old behavior, tar.c is doing:
>
> i = 1;
> name = hname =
On 10/13/20 4:19 PM, enh via Toybox wrote:
> tar was assuming the old behavior of dirtree_path() where there was
> always a spare byte free at the end.
It's not the old behavior, tar.c is doing:
i = 1;
name = hname = dirtree_path(node, );
...
// Consume the 1 extra byte alocated in
