1:46 p.m.
Hi there!
I have downloaded the sumo package of xemacs, and I'm about to unpack it,
but unfortunately it comes up with this error:
tar: directory checksum error
I then tried the archives:
xemacs-sumo-2005-01-18.tar.bz2,
xemacs-sumo-2005-01-18.tar.gz, and
xemacs-sumo.tar.gz
I'm unpacking on a Solaris 8.
The gunzip, and bunzip2 operations as the first step is flawless for all
three archives.
The error appears when using tar on the gunzipped, or bunzipped tar-file.
To me it seems like the tar archive within the zipped archives are
erroneous.
I hope you can help me!
Best regards,
Preben
Preben S Madsen
External Employee - IBM Transport & Logistics
Unix Based Solutions
Lyngbyvej 2, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø
Phone no.: +45 3911 2044
e-mail: ypm(a)dk.ibm.com
www.ibm.com
12:36 p.m.
Preben S Madsen <YPM(a)dk.ibm.com> writes:
Hi there!
I have downloaded the sumo package of xemacs, and I'm about to unpack it,
but unfortunately it comes up with this error:
tar: directory checksum error
I then tried the archives:
xemacs-sumo-2005-01-18.tar.bz2,
xemacs-sumo-2005-01-18.tar.gz, and
xemacs-sumo.tar.gz
I'm unpacking on a Solaris 8.
The gunzip, and bunzip2 operations as the first step is flawless for all
three archives.
The error appears when using tar on the gunzipped, or bunzipped tar-file.
To me it seems like the tar archive within the zipped archives are
erroneous.
I hope you can help me!
This is an incompatibility between GNU tar, which was used to create
the archive, and Solaris tar. Norbert, I forget what the solution on
the creation side is, but Preben, if you could use GNU tar, you could
unpack the archive. GNU tar is available at ftp.gnu.org.
Does anyone remember how to remedy this on the sender side? Is it
pathnames that are too long? ??
- vin
12:39 p.m.
Vin Shelton <acs(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Hi Vin,
Thanks for the fast answer.
the archive, and Solaris tar. Norbert, I forget what the solution
on
the creation side is, but Preben, if you could use GNU tar, you could
unpack the archive. GNU tar is available at ftp.gnu.org.
Does anyone remember how to remedy this on the sender side? Is it
pathnames that are too long? ??
Well, I don't know :-( I could use BSD tar the next time, but this
might give other problems ...
norbert.
3:06 p.m.
>>>> "viteno" == Norbert Koch
<viteno(a)xemacs.org> writes:
viteno> Vin Shelton <acs(a)xemacs.org> writes:
> Does anyone remember how to remedy this on the sender side? Is
> it pathnames that are too long? ??
viteno> Well, I don't know :-( I could use BSD tar the next time,
viteno> but this might give other problems ...
Please stick to GNU tar unless you have good reason to believe you're
not changing one set of problems for another. ISTR that there is a
standard for tar including long path names, now, but that nobody
implements it yet. IIRC, Solaris tar doesn't do long path names,
period, so we'd have to change our naming scheme to conform. :-(
In any case, for a long time GNU tar was most portable and robust, and
all the BSDs provide it in their ports/packages (it's the native tar
on Mac OS X), it's available on Cygwin, and easily available for other
OSes.
--
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
ask what your business can "do for" free software.
9:55 p.m.
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005, Stephen J. Turnbull stated:
>>>>> "viteno" == Norbert Koch
<viteno(a)xemacs.org> writes:
viteno> Vin Shelton <acs(a)xemacs.org> writes:
>> Does anyone remember how to remedy this on the sender side? Is
>> it pathnames that are too long? ??
viteno> Well, I don't know :-( I could use BSD tar the next time,
viteno> but this might give other problems ...
Please stick to GNU tar unless you have good reason to believe you're
not changing one set of problems for another. ISTR that there is a
standard for tar including long path names, now, but that nobody
implements it yet.
I think tar 1.14 and above can do it:
,----[ tar-1.15.1/NEWS ]
| version 1.14 - Sergey Poznyakoff, 2004-05-11
|
| * Added support for POSIX.1-2001 and ustar archive formats.
`----
and I'm pretty sure that the weird alpha versions of GNU tar 1.13 that
most distributors are shipping can unpack these. (I tested Debian
testing's version; I can test Debian stable tomorrow.)
You do this with the --format=posix option to GNU tar, which I
*think* Solaris can understand.
(I'll check that tomorrow, too.)
IIRC, Solaris tar doesn't do long path names,
period, so we'd have to change our naming scheme to conform. :-(
If that's true, you're stuck.
More tomorrow.
--
`Blish is clearly in love with language. Unfortunately,
language dislikes him intensely.' --- Russ Allbery
7:36 a.m.
Hi Vin!
Thank you!
I downloaded the GNU tar, and was then able to untar the archive without
any problems. :-)
/Preben
Preben S Madsen
External Employee - IBM Transport & Logistics
Unix Based Solutions
Lyngbyvej 2, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø
Phone no.: +45 3911 2044
e-mail: ypm(a)dk.ibm.com
www.ibm.com
Vin Shelton <acs(a)xemacs.org>
01-02-2005 13:36
To
Preben S Madsen <YPM(a)dk.ibm.com>
cc
xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org
Subject
Re: Checksum error untaring xemacs-sumo-2005-01-18.tar
Preben S Madsen <YPM(a)dk.ibm.com> writes:
Hi there!
I have downloaded the sumo package of xemacs, and I'm about to unpack
it,
but unfortunately it comes up with this error:
tar: directory checksum error
I then tried the archives:
xemacs-sumo-2005-01-18.tar.bz2,
xemacs-sumo-2005-01-18.tar.gz, and
xemacs-sumo.tar.gz
I'm unpacking on a Solaris 8.
The gunzip, and bunzip2 operations as the first step is flawless for all
three archives.
The error appears when using tar on the gunzipped, or bunzipped
tar-file.
To me it seems like the tar archive within the zipped archives are
erroneous.
I hope you can help me!
This is an incompatibility between GNU tar, which was used to create
the archive, and Solaris tar. Norbert, I forget what the solution on
the creation side is, but Preben, if you could use GNU tar, you could
unpack the archive. GNU tar is available at ftp.gnu.org.
Does anyone remember how to remedy this on the sender side? Is it
pathnames that are too long? ??
- vin
7233
days inactive
7235
days old
5 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Nix -
Norbert Koch -
Preben S Madsen -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
Vin Shelton