Re: [PROBLEM] in 2.2.15 busybox tar

2000-06-13 Thread Ben Collins
> > Did this fix the problem you were seeing then? > Yes, thanks. -- ---===-=-==-=---==-=-- / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '

Re: [PROBLEM] in 2.2.15 busybox tar

2000-06-13 Thread Ben Collins
On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 01:16:32AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote: > Erik Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > What bugs in the current boot-floppies BusyBox need to be fixed? > > > Probably just the tar bug. Other things, such as Bug #64576 > > are not really critical. > > I agree w

Re: [PROBLEM] in 2.2.15 busybox tar

2000-06-12 Thread Erik Andersen
On Fri Jun 09, 2000 at 03:42:12PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > > /* > > * Check if we are done writing to the file now. > > */ > > if (dataCc <= 0 && tostdoutFlag == FALSE) { > > struct utimbuf utb; > > > > if (close(outFd)) > > perror(outName); > > >

Re: [PROBLEM] in 2.2.15 busybox tar

2000-06-12 Thread Adam Di Carlo
Erik Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What bugs in the current boot-floppies BusyBox need to be fixed? > Probably just the tar bug. Other things, such as Bug #64576 > are not really critical. I agree with that. I mean, the busybox changelog you offered the link to does look

Re: [PROBLEM] in 2.2.15 busybox tar

2000-06-09 Thread Erik Andersen
Quoting Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Erik Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > This (and other problems) were what caused me to completely > > rewrite BusyBox tar for the BusyBox 0.43 release. This rewrite > > (along with many other bug fixes) is not in the boot floppies. > > I

Re: [PROBLEM] in 2.2.15 busybox tar

2000-06-09 Thread Erik Andersen
Quoting Randolph Chung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Erik, can you give us some ideas of how you have tested the new busybox? I > know there were some discussions earlier about putting together regression > tests and such. I think it's worth incorporating your fixes into bf, but > maybe some people will

Re: [PROBLEM] in 2.2.15 busybox tar

2000-06-09 Thread Erik Andersen
Quoting Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 02:23:55PM -0600, Erik Andersen wrote: > > Quoting Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > I am pretty close to making the BusyBox 0.44 release at the moment. > > > > > > > > > > What about boot-floppies? > > > > Depen

Re: [PROBLEM] in 2.2.15 busybox tar

2000-06-09 Thread Erik Andersen
Quoting Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 01:52:43PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > > I've discovered a problem in the tar in busybox with boot-floppies 2.2.15. > > I tested with busybox-tar and GNU tar, and it is defenitely in busybox. > > For some reason it is making ./ mod

Re: [PROBLEM] in 2.2.15 busybox tar

2000-06-09 Thread Ben Collins
On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 02:23:55PM -0600, Erik Andersen wrote: > Quoting Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > I am pretty close to making the BusyBox 0.44 release at the moment. > > > > > > > What about boot-floppies? > > Depends on the consensus of the boot floppies developers. > > I

Re: [PROBLEM] in 2.2.15 busybox tar

2000-06-09 Thread Erik Andersen
Quoting Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > I am pretty close to making the BusyBox 0.44 release at the moment. > > > > What about boot-floppies? Depends on the consensus of the boot floppies developers. If folks want my latest and greatest in the boot floppies, then I will be glad to m

Re: [PROBLEM] in 2.2.15 busybox tar

2000-06-09 Thread Adam Di Carlo
Erik Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This (and other problems) were what caused me to completely > rewrite BusyBox tar for the BusyBox 0.43 release. This rewrite > (along with many other bug fixes) is not in the boot floppies. > I stopped updating the boot floppies busybox tree some ti

Re: [PROBLEM] in 2.2.15 busybox tar

2000-06-09 Thread Randolph Chung
Erik, can you give us some ideas of how you have tested the new busybox? I know there were some discussions earlier about putting together regression tests and such. I think it's worth incorporating your fixes into bf, but maybe some people will feel more comfortable if they have some extra assura

Re: [PROBLEM] in 2.2.15 busybox tar

2000-06-09 Thread Ben Collins
> /* > * Check if we are done writing to the file now. > */ > if (dataCc <= 0 && tostdoutFlag == FALSE) { > struct utimbuf utb; > > if (close(outFd)) > perror(outName); > > /* Set the file time */ > utb.actime = mtime; > utb.m

Re: [PROBLEM] in 2.2.15 busybox tar

2000-06-09 Thread Ben Collins
> > I am pretty close to making the BusyBox 0.44 release at the moment. > What about boot-floppies? -- ---===-=-==-=---==-=-- / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROT

Re: [PROBLEM] in 2.2.15 busybox tar

2000-06-09 Thread Ben Collins
On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 01:52:43PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > I've discovered a problem in the tar in busybox with boot-floppies 2.2.15. > I tested with busybox-tar and GNU tar, and it is defenitely in busybox. > For some reason it is making ./ mode 644 (even though in the base2_2.tgz > tarball i

Re: [PROBLEM] in 2.2.15 busybox tar

2000-06-09 Thread Erik Andersen
Quoting Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I've discovered a problem in the tar in busybox with boot-floppies 2.2.15. > I tested with busybox-tar and GNU tar, and it is defenitely in busybox. > For some reason it is making ./ mode 644 (even though in the base2_2.tgz > tarball it is 755). This basi

[PROBLEM] in 2.2.15 busybox tar

2000-06-09 Thread Ben Collins
I've discovered a problem in the tar in busybox with boot-floppies 2.2.15. I tested with busybox-tar and GNU tar, and it is defenitely in busybox. For some reason it is making ./ mode 644 (even though in the base2_2.tgz tarball it is 755). This basically means that users are getting a / with 644 (