Joerg Schilling wrote:
Download tar packaged software and unpack it. Very simple thing, but the thing which the original poster couldn't do with an star archive.Note that this are mailing lists for CD/DVD writing and not lists for ignoring GNU tar problems. You are off topic. Bill Davidsen <email@example.com> wrote:My use dates back to the early Linux days, and I have not had such a problem. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I have NEVER personally had a failure of an uncorrupted gnu tar output.If you do not use GNU tar frequent enough, or you may do too simple things.
- Mysql uses GNU tar to create their distribution and publish archives that are so extremely broken, that only some GNU tar version can unpack them.Having unpacked on RH8, 9, and FC1, FC3. FC4 and FC6, I repeat that it's not a common problem even if you can identify some broken tar which doesn't unpack. You don't want star blamed for broken unpackers, yet you seem to be blaming GNU tar for the same thing. I assume "only some GNU tar versions" means the ones which some distribution didn't screw up.This sounds as funny as a person from GB saying: "We in GB of course drive on the _right_ side of the street". I am careful with my statements and it may be that some of the bugs are fixed in unpublished versions of GNU tar. I reported these bugs to the GNU tar maintaners first in 1993. I have been ignored. Aprox. 2 years ago, many other people started to report the same problems. Since then this repeats every few months: - The maintainers claim that the problems have been fixed. - A few months later other people report the same problems with the current version of GNU tar. The repeated problems are: 1) GNU tar sometimes writes "... skipping to next header" because it incorrectly asumes that the archive has broken headers. 2) Restoring incremental backups does not work. It seems that this has never ever tested in a systematic way as my tests for star did fail immediately.
I'm sorry that star failed, if that comes from adding changes on the end of an archive (append) I can believe it hasn't been heavily tested, most people put each incremental backup in a separate file to allow restoring to any given level. Note: I'm not saying that's better, just that in my experience people don't append incremental data to archives.
3) ~ 5% of the multi-volume continuation archives are not accepted as valid continuation.
For portability that's probably a good decision, since GNU tar "old format" seems to unpack with GNU tar, star, Solaris tar, and even the old Sys-III, SysV, and SysVR4 tar implementations.With the latest GNU tar version you are able to create standard compliant archives but this is still not done by default.
-- bill davidsen <firstname.lastname@example.org> CTO TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979