[Bug-tar] Re: Verifying a tar File.

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi,

I've tried the problem tar files with the latest 1.15.1.

>     $ tar xRvf big.tar nonexistentfile
>     block 1: level 0 backup of blake on 20050807-225123
>     Reading `level 0 backup of blake on 20050807-225123'
>     block 521103: tar: Skipping to next header
>     block 1075261: ** Block of NULs **
>     tar: nonexistentfile: Not found in archive
>     tar: Error exit delayed from previous errors
>     $ echo $?
>     2

    $ $tar1_15_1 --version
    tar (GNU tar) 1.15.1
    $ $tar1_15_1 xRvf big.tar nonexistentfile
    block 1: level 0 backup of blake on 20050807-225123
    Reading `level 0 backup of blake on 20050807-225123'
    block 1075261: ** Block of NULs **
    /home/ralph/src/tar/tar-1.15.1/src/tar: nonexistentfile: Not found in 
archive
    /home/ralph/src/tar/tar-1.15.1/src/tar: Error exit delayed from previous 
errors
    $ echo $?
    2

So that's OK.

>     $ tar xf small.tar home/ralph/pysloc
>     tar: home/ralph/.mozilla/firefox/mc0oqdco.default/cert8.db: \
>         invalid sparse archive member
>     tar: Skipping to next header
>     tar: Error exit delayed from previous errors
>     $ echo $?
>     2
>     $ test -f home/ralph/pysloc; echo $?
>     0

    $ $tar1_15_1 xRvf small.tar home/ralph/pysloc
    block 1: level 1 backup of blake on 20050819-154456
    Reading `level 1 backup of blake on 20050819-154456'
    block 14743: home/ralph/pysloc
    block 18389: ** Block of NULs **
    $ echo $?
    0

And that too.

Can I take it that the tar files I've created with 1.14 are therefore OK
with regard too 1.15.1 reading them correctly, i.e. I can keep them as
long-term backups?

I see Debian has 1.15.1 in unstable and was wondering if Ubuntu 5.04
should upgrade to it given 1.14 can't read what it's just written.  Is
there anything different between the two versions that may put off a
distribution?

> Lastly, what I suppose I really want, seeing that `tar tvf' doesn't do
> it, is an option for tar to check the integrity of a tar file by examing
> *all* its meta-data.

That would still be useful AFAICS.

Cheers,


Ralph.