bug-tar
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Bug-tar] Prb with tar


From: Hichem Hamimed
Subject: Re: [Bug-tar] Prb with tar
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:39:21 +0200

Okay, the result is...
- With tar-1.15.1, I did not resolve the problem, so it's doesn't work.
-With star, I resolve the problem. I backup maybe all the long filenames.
Thanks for all.

I want just to make a remark:
My first tar file have a size of 2 428 858 368 bytes. After "star" of this
file, the size of the directory obtained is 2 430 304 256 bytes. This seems
to be  normal.
BUT, my second tar file have a size of 4 066 791 424 bytes. After "star" of
this file, the size of the directory obtained is 3 956 883 456 bytes. Is it
normal to "loose" 109 907 968 bytes???  here is the stats I obtain after
this operation:
../TTT/star-1.5/star/OBJ/i686-cygwin32_nt-gcc/star_fat: 397147 blocks + 4096
bytes (total of 4066789376 bytes = 3971474.00k).
../TTT/star-1.5/star/OBJ/i686-cygwin32_nt-gcc/star_fat: The following
problems occurred during archive processing:
../TTT/star-1.5/star/OBJ/i686-cygwin32_nt-gcc/star_fat: Cannot: stat 0, open
543, read/write 0. Size changed 0.
../TTT/star-1.5/star/OBJ/i686-cygwin32_nt-gcc/star_fat: Missing links 0,
Name too long 0, File too big 0, Not dumped 0.
../TTT/star-1.5/star/OBJ/i686-cygwin32_nt-gcc/star_fat: Processed all
possible files, despite earlier errors.

Thanks for all,
Hichem

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joerg Schilling" <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>
Cc: <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Bug-tar] Prb with tar


> Sergey Poznyakoff <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > Joerg Schilling <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > > Sun tar does not (yet) uses pax archives for very long file names
> > > but the archive format that pax was based on...
> >
> > I am aware of it. Yet the differences are not so considerable as to
> > prevent tar from coping with the format.
>
> Correct, it would be easy to implement. But AFAIK, it is not yet
implemented.
>
>
> Jörg
>
> -- 
>  EMail:address@hidden (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353
Berlin
>        address@hidden (uni)
>        address@hidden (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
>  URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/
ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily





reply via email to

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