Hi Jean-Philipe, I tried your project and I can't reproduce your issue on Buildr 1.4.1 or trunk. I suggest you open an issue and attach the output of "gem list". I suspect some kind of system configuration issue, maybe with one of the tar dependency.
alex On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Jean-Philippe Caruana < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > we switched recently to buidlr 1.4.1 and we encounter problems with tgz > packaging. We didn't change our buildfile and the generated tgz now produce > errors with "tar xzf" command : > > tar: batch: Cannot open: File exists > tar: Exiting with failure status due to previous errors > > > here is my (sample) buildfile : > > define 'archive' do > lib = package :jar > my_tgz = package :tgz > my_tgz.include _('src/main/batch'), :as=>'batch' > my_tgz.path('batch/lib').include lib > end > > here are my files : > archive > |-- buildfile > `-- src > `-- main > |-- batch > | |-- bin > | | `-- start_script.sh > | `-- etc > | |-- file1 > | |-- file2 > | `-- file3 > `-- java > `-- Empty.java > > > > In fact, the archive is strange. When I look inside it (see the 3rd line > wit > tar tvzf archive-1.0.0.tgz > tar: Record size = 10 blocks > -rw-r--r-- 1000/1000 607 2010-09-01 11:13 batch/lib/archive-1.0.0.jar > -rw-r--r-- 1000/1000 0 2010-09-01 11:00 batch/etc/file1 > -rw-r--r-- 1000/1000 0 2010-09-01 11:00 batch > -rw-r--r-- 1000/1000 0 2010-09-01 11:00 batch/bin/start_script.sh > -rw-r--r-- 1000/1000 0 2010-09-01 11:00 batch/etc/file2 > -rw-r--r-- 1000/1000 0 2010-09-01 11:00 batch/etc/file3 > > > if the archive is generated with buildr 1.3.5, output is different : > tar tvzf archive-1.0.0.tgz > tar: Record size = 9 blocks > -rw-r--r-- 1000/1000 618 2010-09-01 11:10 batch/lib/archive-1.0.0.jar > -rw-r--r-- 1000/1000 0 2010-09-01 11:00 batch/etc/file1 > -rw-r--r-- 1000/1000 0 2010-09-01 11:00 batch/etc/file2 > -rw-r--r-- 1000/1000 0 2010-09-01 11:00 batch/bin/start_script.sh > -rw-r--r-- 1000/1000 0 2010-09-01 11:00 batch/etc/file3 > > > There is one block more and it contains the declaration for the directory > "batch" > > > Is it a bug ? Is there a way to circumvent it ? Am i doing something wrong > ? > > > thanks in advance > > -- Jean-Philippe Caruana > ******************************** > Ce message et toutes les pieces jointes (ci-apres le "message") sont > confidentiels et etablis a l'attention exclusive de ses destinataires. > Toute utilisation ou diffusion non autorisee est interdite. > Tout message electronique est susceptible d'alteration. Multimedia Business > Services decline > toute responsabilite au titre de ce message s'il a ete altere, deforme > ou falsifie. > Si vous n'etes pas destinataire de ce message, merci de le detruire > immediatement et d'avertir l'expediteur. > ********************************* > This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and > intended solely for the addressees. Any unauthorised use or > dissemination is prohibited. > Messages are susceptible to alteration. Multimedia Business Services shall > not be liable for the > message if altered, changed or falsified. > If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it > immediately and inform the sender.. > ******************************** >
