Re: tar --format=ustar is more portable than tar --format=posix

2025-01-29 Thread Paul Eggert
On 1/29/25 16:17, Simon Josefsson wrote: I don't think sub-1s timestamps are useful in release tarballs. My approach to avoid them right now is to hard code timestamps with 'tar --mtime' to last git commit time. This should work until the year 2242, albeit with some hassles with HP/UX 'make'.

Re: tar --format=ustar is more portable than tar --format=posix

2025-01-29 Thread Simon Josefsson via Gnulib discussion list
Paul Eggert writes: > On 1/29/25 13:42, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> I don't see what >> information is useful in a software release tarball that needs to go in >> there? > > The main bugaboo I see is AIX 'make', which says A is out of date if > it has the same timestamp as B. With ustar format time

Re: tar --format=ustar is more portable than tar --format=posix

2025-01-29 Thread Paul Eggert
On 1/29/25 14:50, Bruno Haible wrote: The main bugaboo I see is AIX 'make', which says A is out of date if it has the same timestamp as B. It's only HP-UX 'make', not AIX 'make', as you found out recently in the thread "reproducible built files" [1][2]. Oh, I got them turned around again. Than

Re: tar --format=ustar is more portable than tar --format=posix

2025-01-29 Thread Bruno Haible via Gnulib discussion list
Paul Eggert wrote: > > I don't see what > > information is useful in a software release tarball that needs to go in > > there? > > The main bugaboo I see is AIX 'make', which says A is out of date if it > has the same timestamp as B. It's only HP-UX 'make', not AIX 'make', as you found out recen

Re: tar --format=ustar is more portable than tar --format=posix

2025-01-29 Thread Paul Eggert
On 1/29/25 13:42, Simon Josefsson wrote: I don't see what information is useful in a software release tarball that needs to go in there? The main bugaboo I see is AIX 'make', which says A is out of date if it has the same timestamp as B. With ustar format timestamps have only 1 s resolution s

Re: tar --format=ustar is more portable than tar --format=posix

2025-01-29 Thread Simon Josefsson via Gnulib discussion list
Paul Eggert writes: > On 2025-01-29 11:20, Simon Josefsson via Gnulib discussion list wrote: >> It seems tar 1.13.25 from Debian 3 doesn't understand the virtual >> ./PaxHeaders/ sub-directory and print warnings. It still exits >> successfully though. But it create a ./PaxHeaders/ sub-directory

Re: tar --format=ustar is more portable than tar --format=posix

2025-01-29 Thread Paul Eggert
On 2025-01-29 11:20, Simon Josefsson via Gnulib discussion list wrote: It seems tar 1.13.25 from Debian 3 doesn't understand the virtual ./PaxHeaders/ sub-directory and print warnings. It still exits successfully though. But it create a ./PaxHeaders/ sub-directory in the current directory. Thi