Hi Paul, > Thanks for catching that bug. We don't yet have a facility > for large test cases, so I guess we can put that on the todo list.
I agree (this is probably about paxutils?). > Your patch doesn't feel quite right, as there's a similar > issue in pax_dump_header_0, and also there's a problem if > the shrunken size is less than 8 GiB but the real size is not. > I pushed the following patch instead: does it fix things for you? Of course, it fixes the issue. Thanks for this! Pavel
