[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Bug-tar] dereferencing broken since 1.24?
From: |
gene heskett |
Subject: |
Re: [Bug-tar] dereferencing broken since 1.24? |
Date: |
Wed, 5 Jan 2011 13:09:15 -0500 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.37; KDE/4.5.4; i686; ; ) |
On Wednesday, January 05, 2011 12:58:33 pm Paul Eggert did opine:
> On 01/04/11 15:28, Michael Lawrence wrote:
> > Issuing these commands with 1.23:
> >
> > $ touch foo
> > $ tar czfh foo.tar.gz foo bar
> > $ tar tzvf foo.tar.gz
> > -rw-r--r-- larman/larman 0 2011-01-04 15:06 foo
> > -rw-r--r-- larman/larman 0 2011-01-04 15:06 bar
> >
> > That is as expected
>
> No doubt you meant that foo should be a symbolic link to tar?
> (Your example doesn't say.)
>
> But in that case, I don't see why you'd expect the behavior
> described above. If symlinks are being followed, 'tar' should
> behave the same with 'ln foo bar' as it does with 'ln -s foo bar',
> which is like this:
>
> $ touch foo
> $ ln foo bar
> $ tar czfh foo.tar.gz foo bar
> $ tar tzvf foo.tar.gz
> -rw-r--r-- eggert/eggert 0 2011-01-05 09:43 foo
> hrw-r--r-- eggert/eggert 0 2011-01-05 09:43 bar link to foo
>
> This behavior is the same for both 1.22 and 1.25 (I just checked).
> tar 1.22 mishandles it if "ln -s" is used, but 1.25 gets it right.
>
> On 01/05/11 08:09, gene heskett wrote:
> > Test cases have been submitted, but no fix progress has been
> > noted, and this bug has been out of the refrigerator long enough to
> > develop an odor in this amanda users camp.
>
> I assume we're talking about a bug in Amanda here?
Not an amanda bug, you broke an amanda usage amanda been using for a decade
or more.
> I don't recall test cases being submitted to bug-tar.
>
> Where is the Amanda bug report?
Somewhere in this lists archives, say a month or more back up the log, and
the thread even includes a test case code snippet to demo the problem, and
which I thought was going to be added to your "make test: suite. I'm not
sure which of the amanda contributors (I am not one, I play the canary in
the coal mine part in this play) posted the test case code, my memory says
it may not have been Jean-Louis M. I would go find it in my email corpus
here, but due to speed and disk usage constraints, I have kmail expiring
this folder at 30 days. It is nearly 21Gb as it is. Next time I install,
/home is going to get 100Gb to play in.
Perhaps Jean-Louis is copying the list, and can refresh that thread?
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Eloquence is logic on fire.
- Re: [Bug-tar] dereferencing broken since 1.24?, (continued)
- Re: [Bug-tar] dereferencing broken since 1.24?, Michael Lawrence, 2011/01/05
- Re: [Bug-tar] dereferencing broken since 1.24?, Paul Eggert, 2011/01/05
- Re: [Bug-tar] dereferencing broken since 1.24?, Joerg Schilling, 2011/01/06
- Re: [Bug-tar] dereferencing broken since 1.24?, Michael Lawrence, 2011/01/06
- Re: [Bug-tar] dereferencing broken since 1.24?, Paul Eggert, 2011/01/06
- Re: [Bug-tar] dereferencing broken since 1.24?, Michael Lawrence, 2011/01/06
- Re: [Bug-tar] dereferencing broken since 1.24?, Paul Eggert, 2011/01/06
- Re: [Bug-tar] dereferencing broken since 1.24?, Michael Lawrence, 2011/01/06
- Re: [Bug-tar] dereferencing broken since 1.24?, Michael Lawrence, 2011/01/06
- Re: [Bug-tar] dereferencing broken since 1.24?, Paul Eggert, 2011/01/06
Re: [Bug-tar] dereferencing broken since 1.24?,
gene heskett <=
[Bug-tar] Re: dereferencing broken since 1.24?, Nathan Stratton Treadway, 2011/01/05
[Bug-tar] Re: dereferencing broken since 1.24?, Nathan Stratton Treadway, 2011/01/05