Hi. Suggestion from a user of my Debian packages for improving the info
docs for tar.
Bdale
--- Begin Message ---
Package: tar-doc
Version: 1.19-2
Severity: minor
The lines for "create", "backup" and "extract" correctly start
lower-case, as these are command names.
"looking ahead" should be "L
Another suggested improvement to the info docs.
Bdale
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Bdale Garbee wrote:
On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 12:15 +, Reuben Thomas wrote:
The lines for "create", "backup" and "extract" correctly start
lower-case, as these are
One of the users of my Debian tar packages reports that --transform only
works on symlinks during extraction, not on creation or listing. A
quick review of the info doc didn't suggest any reason for that to be
intentional?
Bdale
--- Begin Message ---
Package: tar
Version: 1.19-1
Severity: normal
One of the users of my Debian packaging of tar notes tripped over the fact
that while the definition of option -l changed in 1.15.91 to no longer be a
synonym for --one-file-system, some of the translated documentation in po/*
apparently has apparently not yet been updated to reflect that fact?
Bd
A bug filed a while back by one of the users of my Debian packaging of tar
noted that passing pipes via <() in bash on the tar command line had broken,
and Ingo Saitz later tracked this down to the introduction of closeopen() on
2006-07-03, but noted there was no reason given for the change.
I'd b
On Sat, 2008-02-23 at 10:44 +0200, Sergey Poznyakoff wrote:
> Hi Bdale,
>
> > A bug filed a while back by one of the users of my Debian packaging of tar
> > noted that passing pipes via <() in bash on the tar command line had broken,
> > and Ingo Saitz later tracked this down to the introduction
Hi. My Debian package of tar 1.19 is failing on the hppa (PARISC) autobuilders
with several regression suite failures... tests 26, 32, 36, 40, 42, and 43. It
seems to build fine on all other Debian architectures.
Any clues as to what might be wrong before I go light a fire under the Debian
hppa
One of the users of my Debian packaging of tar reports a problem with
restoring from a multi-volume LS120 diskette backup, as per the
attached.
Thoughts?
Bdale
--- Begin Message ---
Package: tar
Version: 1.19-3
Severity: normal
Backing up to an LS120 (Laser Servo) diskette drive:
cd ~/backup
One of the users of my Debian packaging of tar reports that --compare
returns an error message on stderr instead of the expected error
notification on stdout when a specified file does not exist.
I have confirmed that the same behavior exists with tar 1.20.
The info documentation isn't entirely
Please comment on the attached patch from Bastian Blank regarding
SIGPIPE behavior proposed for inclusion in my Debian packaging of tar.
Bdale
--- Begin Message ---
Package: tar
Version: 1.22-1
Severity: grave
tar is not longer able to read tar files with some garbage at the end
under some condi
Please see the attached proposed patch from Petr Salinger. Looks
reasonable to me... your thoughts?
Bdale
--- Begin Message ---
Package: tar
Severity: important
Version: 1.22-1
Tags: patch
User: glibc-bsd-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: kfreebsd
Hi,
the current version of tar breaks b
A user of our Debian packages of tar points out that it might be more
efficient to use lseek() in some circumstances, particularly for
archives containing a small number of large files.
Bdale
--- Begin Message ---
Package: tar
Version: 1.20-1
Severity: normal
When running "tar tf" on a large tar
A user of my Debian package of tar provided this very thorough analysis
of a problem when using tar to back up systems where file system
snapshots are in use.
Thoughts?
Bdale
--- Begin Message ---
Package: tar
Version: 1.20-1
Severity: normal
When creating incremental backups using snapshot fil
Sergey,
Forwarding this note from Rogier with a proposed patch for the
incremental timing issue. He apparently sent it as a reply to the
Debian bug tracking system without copying you, which I suspect means
you would never see it. My apologies if this is a duplicate in your
inbox.
Bdale
--- Beg
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 21:59:03 -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> This file name is exactly 100 bytes long, and if I recall, that used
> to be a problem area in GNU tar. The 1.24 tarball contains a longlink
> representation of the file (which isn't right), whereas the 1.23 tarball
> is right.
Ugh. Smoki
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 22:19:12 -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 11/10/2010 10:14 PM, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 21:59:03 -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> >> This file name is exactly 100 bytes long, and if I recall, that used
> >> to be a problem area in
In late August, it was reported that my Debian tar package 1.26-2 failed
to build on kfreebsd, due to test 56 failing. The cause appears to be
related to a difference in the way that getcwd is implemented. More
details are available in our bug tracking system at:
http://bugs.debian.org/6
A user of my Debian packaging of tar notes that an incremental dump
during which a directory is deleted and another directory is renamed to
match the original name of the deleted directory will fail to restore:
tar: Cannot rename `tartest/dir2' to `tartest/dir1': Directory not empty
tar: Exiti
There's a long-standing bug open against my Debian packaging of tar
asking me to include one or another of the xattr support patches.
http://bugs.debian.org/451932
I've held off through a combination of wanting to stay as close as
possible to the upstream sources and an apparently errone
Pavel Raiskup writes:
> Bdale, thanks for touching this important topic. I just want to ask you
> whether there is xattr patch other than Fedora originated?
I've been heads-down this week on an entirely different project, but
after a quick look at the pointers to patches different folks have g
Hi.
A couple Debian users have reported issues using our packaging of tar
1.30 to unpack source packages made with 1.29 and prior stored in git
repos using pristine-tar, due to an unfortunate side-effect of
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/tar.git/commit/?id=dee7e3f16e74e07504bb8f4d80426005fe4364
Back in January of 2005, Joey Hess pointed out in a bug report against
Debian's package of tar that's actually an enhancement request, and as I
clean up my open bug list in preparation for the next Debian release I
realized we never passed it along.
The concern expressed is that tar is vulnerable
A Debian user pointed out a while back that the tar man page doesn't
mention that verbosity can be increased by using multiple -v or
--verbose options, nor does it mention the maximum verbosity level.
More details in the bug log at:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=602898
Regar
A while back, a Debian developer observed that using --delete can in
at least some cases cause filenames after the deleted ones to be
corrupted. There's a test case in the bug log at
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=869087
I was able to confirm that this still happens with t
Many years ago a Debian user pointed out that the tar info page has
conflicting definitions for the -o option. I just confirmed that this
is still true in 1.30. Please accept my apologies for letting this rot
in our bug tracking system for so long before passing it along. More
details in the bug
Some years ago, a Debian user pointed out that tar behaves badly when
given legal (but weird?) POSIX filenames like
\fhd =
or as of a follow-up from another user against version 1.29, even
Студия_07\04\12.meta1-conv
More details in the Debian bug log at
https://bugs.debian.org/cg
A Debian user of tar pointed out a while back that --warning=none
doesn't always work as expected. The example involved using options
'df' to compare a simple tar file to a directory tree with a removed
file. I used the procedure in the bug log to confirm this still happens
with tar 1.30:
http
A Debian user of tar points out that the man page documents --preserve,
but tar doesn't actually support it, complaining that --preserve is
ambiguous. Full details in the Debian bug log at
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=847993
Regards,
Bdale
signature.asc
Description: PGP
Sergey Poznyakoff writes:
> This is the correct behavior. The --unquote option is used by default,
Ah! Right, thanks for the reply. I'll close this bug with an
explanation based on this email.
Bdale
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
While building the Debian packages for 1.15.1, I discovered that the file
tests/append.at was not included in the distribution tarball for some reason.
Fetching this file from CVS and installing it in the right place in my
build tree allows 'make check' to run as expected again.
Bdale
_
--- Begin Message ---
This is the Postfix program at host rover.gag.com.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
For further assistance, please send mail to
If you do so, please include this problem report. You ca
Hello.
As per the attached, tar's default behavior regarding setuid/setgid bits
has been identified as a security issue and submitted to the Debian bug
tracking system, among other places.
My initial reaction was to be concerned that changing the default would
violate user expectations, but I und
Debian recently passed a general resolution regarding the GFDL, details
of which are available at:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001
It has been brought to my attention that the info documents in the tar
distribution include unmodifiable sections:
http://bugs.debian.org/cg
On Sat, 2006-03-25 at 18:12 +, Sergey Poznyakoff wrote:
> Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Would it be possible to
> > either remove the assertions about the cover texts (which seems like an
> > inconsequential change to me in this case), or altern
On Sun, 2006-03-19 at 12:40 -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> "Sergey Poznyakoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> The document contains the section by inclusion (see the "@include
> >> fdl.texi").
> >
> > No, it does not. The title of the included section is 'GNU Free
> > Documentation License', wher
On Sat, 2006-03-25 at 23:53 -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > * Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-25 15:25]:
> >> > Sorry, it is not possible.
> >>
> >> Why not? The alternative is tha
FYI, a buffer overflow fix in the test suite discovered while diagnosing
amd64 test suite problems in Debian.
Bdale
--- Begin Message ---
Package: tar
Version: 1.15.91-2
Tags: patch
Hi,
When searching for problems why the testsuite failed, I came
acrross an error where there is a buffer overflo
FYI, a new de.po from the Debian German translation folks.
Bdale
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
please find attached the german po file for the new tar 1.15.91-2
Holger
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 22:26:56 -0400 (EDT) Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Could you please update the po and pot files you provided
A user of my Debian package of tar reports a problem in version 1.16 where
doing something like
tar -cf test.tar ~/.mozilla --exclude-from=<(cat /etc/group)
results in the following error output:
tar: /dev/fd/63: No such file or directory
tar: Error is not recoverable: exiting now
The attached from a user of my Debian tar packaging. I have no personal
experience with the --remove-files option, but the behavior described
certainly isn't what I would have expected.
Bdale
--- Begin Message ---
Package: tar
Version: 1.16-2
Severity: normal
When creating an archive when --rem
40 matches
Mail list logo
