> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 9:39 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Problem w/ cygwin tar.exe: Unable to tar directories
> beginnin g w/ the letter 'R' in NT 4.0
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 09:29:38PM -0800, Lothan wrote:
> >> >Now I'm really curious why I'm not seeing this odd behavior
> on my system.
> >> >The only changes I've made to the stock release of cygwin is
> >> that I dumped
> >> >sh-utils 1.16 in favor of sh-utils 2.0.
> >>
> >> Um. Doesn't echo come from sh-utils?
> >
> >Yes, but what's that got to do with tar mangling filenames containing \t?
>
> Weren't you saying that echo behaved differently for you? If you have a
> new version of sh-utils that may be why. However, it's really only of
> academic interest.
No, I was saying that *tar* was behaving differently for me. I pointed out
that I had replaced sh-utils 1.6 with sh-utils 2.0 so that very well could
explain the difference in behavior for echo... but it does not explain why
tar is behaving differently. It is only an academic issue, and I was just
curious as to why tar on my system does not expand \t to tab... not that I
want it to, of course.
> I was trying to determine if this was a cygwin problem. Now we know that
> it isn't. We've empirically determined that tar is doing something funny
> with backslashes.
On some systems. As I said, when I run c:\cygwin\tar cvf c:\temp\test.tar *
on my system, I get the correct c:\temp\test.tar file. It also works with
c:\temp\test\new\rat.tar.
> I have no idea why tar would be doing this and have no interest in even
> speculating on why it would be doing this. Since Cygwin is designed to
> provide UNIX style pathnames, and the use of backslashes is very rare in
> UNIX, this problem is of very little interest to me.
>
> Since we have now moved beyond the point where we have to wonder who is
> doing what, the next step is for someone who cares to debug tar.
>
> That's not going to be me. It is most likely going to be left to someone
> who cares enough about this behavior to look into it.
>
> Hopefully, the next post on the subject will be from someone who has
> investigated the source code since further speculation seems pretty
> fruitless.
I also mentioned that my version of tar is 1.13.18 (from the tar-1.13.18-3
package) just to see if that could be a possible difference. I brought it up
because I noticed the timestamp on the executable is 2-1-2001.
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
