[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness

From: Alexandre Duret-Lutz
Subject: Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness
Date: 19 Apr 2004 11:43:49 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/21.3.50

>>> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <address@hidden> writes:

 Paul> Alexandre Duret-Lutz <address@hidden> writes:

 >> address@hidden selects the new pax format defined by POSIX
 >> +1003.1-2001.  It supports filenames with up to 65535 characters.

 Paul> Hmm, where did that "65535" come from?  I don't know of any limit of
 Paul> 65535 bytes (presumably you meant bytes, not characters) that is
 Paul> required by POSIX.

I read that in the Heirloom pax manpage

Maybe its maintainer can enlighten us.

 Paul> Also, there are moves to change the pax format (so far in an
 Paul> upward-compatible way, but you never know....).  Perhaps you should
 Paul> mention that "tar-pax" is intended to be the most recent version of
 Paul> the pax interchange format, not necessarily the 2001 version.  (This
 Paul> problem probably afflicts the GNU tar documentation as well....)

Will do.

 >> +  cpio)
 >> +    am__tar='find "$$tardir" -print | cpio -H $1 -L -o'
 >> +    am__tar_='find "$tardir" -print | cpio -H $1 -L -o'
 >> +    am__untar='cpio -i'

 Paul> Wouldn't it be safer to use 'cpio -H tar -i' rather than 'cpio -i'?
 Paul> The latter autodetects, but I worry that autodetection isn't infallible.
 Paul> (I don't know about cpio to be sure here.)

It shouldn't hurt.
Alexandre Duret-Lutz

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]