Re: Bug#453435: cpio cannot read its own tarfiles
- To: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
- Cc: Clint Adams <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#453435: cpio cannot read its own tarfiles
- From: Luk Claes <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 11:02:09 +0100
- Message-id: <4791CAA1.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20071129173938.GA23717@scowler.net> <email@example.com> <20071129201119.GA27183@scowler.net> <475C198F.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20071209170311.GA18234@scowler.net> <email@example.com>
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Luk Claes writes ("Re: Bug#453435: cpio cannot read its own tarfiles"):
>> Can you please include a diff so we can review it and have an idea about
>> the impact of the update?
> Well, as Clint says, I expect the diff would be something like that in
> #358990. But note that I haven't reviewed that diff for correctness
> and I don't know whether in fact that was the exact change made in sid
> to fix #358990; nor do I know whether the same diff is correct in the
> context of etch's cpio.
> Russell Stuart appears to be the author of that patch and Clint seems
> to have reviewed it. If they're too busy then I'd be happy to check
> it again but I just wanted to be clear that my role so far has really
> just been as a bug submitter who thinks that a bug described in the
> way #358990 is probably ought to be fixed in stable.
> My bug was indeed #453435. Clint thought that was a manifestation of
> #358990 which seems plausible and I have seen no reason to doubt that
> conclusion. My comments about updating stable are based on reading
> #358990: the proposed for a stable update should be regarded as a fix
> for #358990.
Please upload a fix to stable. Thanks already.