----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- > Paul Eggert <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 04/14/2014 06:41 AM, Sasa Vilic wrote: > > > I guess that in out particular case it just might be that accidentally > > > checksum is correct. > > > > Thanks for the bug report. Perhaps tar could be modified to not only > > look at the checksum, but also attempt to decode the first header (as a > > sort of "larger" checksum). That would have fixed your problemand would > > fix the typical case of this sort of thing,though I suppose it still > > wouldn't work in general. > > Yesterday, I reconstructed the data from the last mail and it is obvious that > the checksum is not "correct".
I patched gtar now to print out debug information and I hope that this information could help in further investigation. The tar_checksum (list.c) function did return HEADER_SUCCESS and following checksum inside tar_checksum have been computed: * unsigned_sum: 55552 * signed_sum: 0 * parsed_sum/recorded_sum: 0. Since tar_checksum returns HEADER_SUCCESS, the function check_compressed_archive (buffer.c) will return ct_tar (plain tar file) as detected type and will not try look into magic number to detect compression algorithm, which is exactly the issue here. Regards, Sasa Vilic -- UBIMET GmbH - weather matters Sasa Vilic • IT A-1220 Wien • Donau-City-Straße 11 • [email protected] • www.ubimet.com
