On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Paul Eggert
<address@hidden> wrote:
On 01/04/11 15:28, Michael Lawrence wrote:
> Issuing these commands with 1.23:
>
> $ touch foo
> $ tar czfh foo.tar.gz foo bar
> $ tar tzvf foo.tar.gz
> -rw-r--r-- larman/larman 0 2011-01-04 15:06 foo
> -rw-r--r-- larman/larman 0 2011-01-04 15:06 bar
>
> That is as expected
No doubt you meant that foo should be a symbolic link to tar?
(Your example doesn't say.)
But in that case, I don't see why you'd expect the behavior
described above. If symlinks are being followed, 'tar' should
behave the same with 'ln foo bar' as it does with 'ln -s foo bar',
which is like this:
$ touch foo
$ ln foo bar
$ tar czfh foo.tar.gz foo bar
$ tar tzvf foo.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- eggert/eggert 0 2011-01-05 09:43 foo
hrw-r--r-- eggert/eggert 0 2011-01-05 09:43 bar link to foo
This behavior is the same for both 1.22 and 1.25 (I just checked).
tar 1.22 mishandles it if "ln -s" is used, but 1.25 gets it right.
Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I was under the impression that the -h option dereferences symlinks, so that they become regular files inside the archive. Is this not how it is supposed to work?
Thanks,
Michael
On 01/05/11 08:09, gene heskett wrote:
> Test cases have been submitted, but no fix progress has been
> noted, and this bug has been out of the refrigerator long enough to develop
> an odor in this amanda users camp.
I assume we're talking about a bug in Amanda here?
I don't recall test cases being submitted to bug-tar.
Where is the Amanda bug report?