From owner-freebsd-current  Wed Mar 20 08:20:23 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id IAA12431
          for current-outgoing; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 08:20:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rocky.sri.MT.net (rocky.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.10])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA12426
          for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 08:20:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.sri.MT.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07794; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 09:23:04 -0700
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 09:23:04 -0700
From: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net>
Message-Id: <199603201623.JAA07794@rocky.sri.MT.net>
To: Juha Inkari <inkari@snakemail.hut.fi>
Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: GNU tar 1.11.2
In-Reply-To: <199603201441.QAA05944@lk-hp-20.hut.fi>
References: <199603201441.QAA05944@lk-hp-20.hut.fi>
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> I just found, that a command:
> 
> tar -C /tmp -xsf foo.tar
> 
> drops core. This is because tar seems to assume, that when s flag is
> used, there are more arguments to come, and ends up calling strlen(0)
> (see patch below).
> 
> I looked up GNU tar 1.11.8 (dated May 1995), and the code indeed seems
> to have changed a bit. It doesn't work correctly either, but gives a
> "Missing file name after -C".
> 
> However, is anyone considered bumping the tar version from 1.11.2
> (March 1993) to 1.11.8 for any reason whatever ?

I looked at it a while back, and the new GNU tar contains a lot of stuff
that I don't think we need, but one of the international folks (ie;
8-bit clean) like Andrey comment.


Nate