Re: [PATCH] support filename prefixes and 100-character filenames in tar-mode.el

[David Glasser]

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Juri Linkov <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> >> >> > With all of the patch except for the change in the initial
>  >>  >>  > initialization of name-end, the results look correct, except the
>  >>  >>  > penultimate line ends in "foo2" instead of "foo20"; that is because
>  >>  >>  > the name field here fill the entire field with no nulls, but the 
> code
>  >>  >>  > previously assumed there would be at least one null.  (It's 
> possible
>  >>  >>  > that similar adjustments are required for the initial values of
>  >>  >>  > link-end, gname-end, and uname-end.)
>  >>  >>
>  >>  >>  Does your patch also handle @LongLink currently unsupported by 
> tar-mode.el?
>  >>  >
>  >>  > Is it actually unsupported?  When I tried to make a tarball to test
>  >>  > this issue with GNU tar, I saw stuff about "@LongLink" when I opened
>  >>  > it in tar-mode.  (Try making a tarball from the one I sent using GNU
>  >>  > tar; you'll see what I mean; I made my test tarball with pax, since
>  >>  > that was what was used to make the one I opened when I first noticed
>  >>  > this issue.)  I don't know if it was correct or not, though.
>  >>
>  >>  Please see a test tarball attached below.  It is correctly created with
>  >>  GNU tar, but opening it in Emacs displays the following message:
>  >>
>  >>     Warning: premature EOF parsing tar file
>  >>
>  >>  Also its file listing is incomplete, file names are truncated, and 
> content
>  >>  of some files is inserted into the file listing in the tar-mode buffer.
>  >>
>  >>  I thought your patch will fix these problems.
>  >
>  > Ugh, that's pretty gross.  Mine fixes issues with a different way of
>  > encoding long file names, as far as I understand.  However, there is
>  > *some* long-link support in tar-mode.el, just not whatever's up with
>  > that file.
>
>  It seems tar-mode.el has some limitations on the file name lengths.

Apparently so.  I think my patch improve it, though, at least for one
version of tar file.  Is there something I need to do to increase the
chances of it being applied?

--dave


-- 
David Glasser | address@hidden | http://www.davidglasser.net/