[Bug-tar] more on woes with --listed-incremental

[John R. Vanderpool]

> > also, what is the diff with the trailing slash here?:
> 
> This is definitely a bug. Please try the attached patch. -sergey

cvs snapshot tar-1.15.2-20060210 w/ listed-incr trailing slash patch

at some point the --listed-incremental file went from having all the file
names in it to just the dirs (this is a good thing, as it is much smaller)

so for this method to work, i assume what gtar does is if it sees the
directory mtime changed, it then interogates all files in that dir to
see if their mtime (or, i would hope ctime?) is newer or equal to the
dir mtime; however, it appears this later stage is not working right,
here is a simple test to see:

# mkdir a
# touch a/x a/y
# gtar -c -v -f a.tar -g incrlis ./ 
gtar: ./a: Directory is new
./
./a/
gtar: ./a.tar: file is the archive; not dumped
./incrlis
./a/x
./a/y

# rm a/x
# gtar -c -v -f a.tar -g incrlis ./ 
./
./a/
gtar: ./a.tar: file is the archive; not dumped
./a/y

gtar puts a/y into the archive and it should not, it is doing it because
it saw dir a's time stamp changed, but then apparently not comparing
y's time to a's i guess.

this is greatly affecting us as we have directories with very large
amounts of data so if anything is added/removed/modified then we get
the whole dir in our incrementals and that is even filling up SDLT II
300GB tapes!

if i revert back to straight tar-1.15.2-20060210 the above simple example
does not do the wrong thing anymore; but, my large backups still exhibit
similar behavior (it backs up many files that have not changed)