Re: Another weird tar issue (100 character filenames)
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 09:07:03AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
>
> > I just built new xml-security-c packages to fix the current FTBFS bug, and
> > lintian returned the following error message:
> >
> > E: libxml-security-c-doc: deb-created-with-broken-tar file: /usr/share/doc/libxml-security-c-doc/c/apiDocs/winutils_2XSECBinHTTPURIInputStream_8hpp-source.html
> > N:
> > N: The binary package was created with a broken version of tar. Some
> > N: versions of tar contain a bug, which make the resulting .deb broken.
> > N: On unpack, some filenames are going to be corrupted.
> > N:
> > N: This package was build with such a version of tar, and the mentioned
> > N: filename is corrupted. Refer to Debian bug #230910 for more
> > N: information, or simply update your tar-version and rebuild.
> >
> > (along with several other files). These filenames are indeed exactly 100
> > characters long, as mentioned in the referenced bug. The bug, however,
> > indicates that this may not have really been a bug in tar but rather was a
> > bug in dpkg with its inability to handle filenames that were exactly 100
> > characters (apparently one isn't supposed to nul-terminate in that
> > case).
>
> It sounds like a bug that dpkg is using the old v7 tar format which
> had that 99 char limitation.s
Actually dpkg could and can deal fine with long filenames, dpkg just
had(?) a bug that a weird way of storing exactly-100-character-long
filenames were not extracted properly. At some point tar created such
tar archives, and dpkg went haywire on resulting .debs.
It looks like this issue returned, the question is whether the bug in
dpkg was fixed in sarge or not, since by now woody's version of dpkg
doesn't really matter that much anymore.
But on the other hand, according to the 'be strict in what you send,
liberal in what you accept' mantra, it makes sense for tar to not create
tarfiles which in the past have caused issues for certain programs while
there's a perfectly fine way to create tarfiles which cannot trigger
such bugs.
--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Reply to: