Re: gnutar was (Re: Porting Subversion to VMS) - VMS

This is a discussion on Re: gnutar was (Re: Porting Subversion to VMS) - VMS ; From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois_Pi=E9ronne? > > The potential problems involve file names longer than 100 characters, > > files bigger than 2GB, files bigger than 8GB, symbolic links, and other > > such things, where GNU "tar" has been extended to handle ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Re: gnutar was (Re: Porting Subversion to VMS)

  1. Re: gnutar was (Re: Porting Subversion to VMS)

    From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois_Pi=E9ronne?

    > > The potential problems involve file names longer than 100 characters,
    > > files bigger than 2GB, files bigger than 8GB, symbolic links, and other
    > > such things, where GNU "tar" has been extended to handle cases which
    > > would defeat old "tar" programs, or where the underlying VMS support is
    > > new. An archive which is only "fairly large" might not touch any of
    > > these.


    > I suspect that Python correctly handle these cases, pretty sure about
    > long pathname and symbolic links because MySQL use these sort of
    > feature. As Python is compile using 64 bits file routines extracting
    > large file would probably work, but I have never try but I'm
    > definitively sure that Python correctly handle file bigger than 2GB.


    Interesting test philosophy you have there. Some people would wait
    until _after_ they've tried it before becoming "definitively sure" about
    it. Compiling with _LARGEFILE defined does not ensure the use of 64-bit
    integers for a file size/offset. There's also a "tar" format limit at
    8GB (an 11-digit octal size field, as I recall). But if you're _that_
    sure, well, that's good enough for me.

    SMS.

  2. Re: gnutar was (Re: Porting Subversion to VMS)

    Steven M. Schweda wrote:
    > From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois_Pi=E9ronne?
    >

    [snip]

    >
    > Interesting test philosophy you have there. Some people would wait
    > until _after_ they've tried it before becoming "definitively sure" about
    > it. Compiling with _LARGEFILE defined does not ensure the use of 64-bit


    I know that Python on VMS correctly handle large file because it pass
    all the tests provide to check that large file support is present.

    I don't remember having mentionned that "compiling with _LARGEFILE" is
    what I have test.

    FYI, a test doesn't prove the correctness of a program, it can prove
    that there is a problem or just that the program pass this test when you
    run it. So until you provide an example showing it doesn't work it is
    suppose to work.

    > integers for a file size/offset. There's also a "tar" format limit at
    > 8GB (an 11-digit octal size field, as I recall). But if you're _that_
    > sure, well, that's good enough for me.
    >


    So if it is a tar format limitation it is not a Python (or any program)
    limitation.

    JFP

+ Reply to Thread