Article View: comp.sys.next.sysadmin
Article #1285Re: bug in tar, anyone fixed it?
From: mckelvey
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1992 21:09
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1992 21:09
30 lines
1771 bytes
1771 bytes
In article <1992Oct6.133148.12377@resonex.com> zenon@resonex.com (Zenon Fortuna) writes: > In article <1992Oct6.084806.10760@urz.unibas.ch> frank@ifi.unibas.ch writes: > >In article <ti6ls.718300894@tuhhco> writes: > >> As the man pages say "The current limit on file name length is 100 > >characters." > >> Has anyone fixed this bug? > >> > >/***************************************************************************** / > >> /* Ludger Solbach, AB Techn. Inf. VI, TU Hamburg-Harburg, Germany > >YEP, GNU! get GNUtar... (it's all over the places, on many different servers) > >-- > >Robert Frank tel. + (061) 321 99 67 > > > I do not understand the answer. The gnutar still has the default NAMSIZ set > to (only ?) 100 characters. Maybe Robert thought about the path length ? > Gnutar DOES backup files with path names longer than 100 characters. But it does it by "mangling" the name to something shorter. Then at the end, it writes out a special file that relates the mangled names to the true names. This doesn't really work perfectly; the verify option can't verify them. And I believe that the only way to get the files properly demangled is to restore the entire archive. Or to keep a list of them yourself and do it manually. This may have changed in the latest Gnutar.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<Bvrs3q.C5w@suite.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!suite!usenetReferences:
<1992Oct6.133148.12377@resonex.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.sysadmin Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!suite!usenet From: mckelvey@suite.com Subject: Re: bug in tar, anyone fixed it? Message-ID: <Bvrs3q.C5w@suite.com> Sender: usenet@suite.com (Usenet) Reply-To: mckelvey@suite.com Organization: Suite Software, Anaheim CA. References: <1992Oct6.133148.12377@resonex.com> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:09:25 GMT Lines: 30