tar -p and usernames vs. uid's

[Natanael Copa]

On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 16:08 -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Thursday 04 May 2006 6:56 pm, Natanael Copa wrote:
> > Could anybody please take a short look at the previously posted update
> > for the tar uname/gname patch and get it committed?
> >
> > http://www.busybox.net/lists/busybox/2006-April/020789.html
> 
> Sorry, this got blocked because my copy of tar is hacked up with a modified
> version of Dennis Vlasenko's write coalesce fix, which is A) much simpler, B)
> doesn't work.  I've been meaning to track down why.  (I'm getting the padding
> sizes wrong somewhere...)
> 
> Looking at the patch:
> 
> Sigh, more #ifdefs.  But it's an area of the code that's full of 'em already,
> so I'll clean it up later.

You wan't:

if (CONFIG_FEATURE_BLABLA) {
   ...
} else {
   ...
}

instead of
#idef CONFIG_FEATURE_BLABLA
  ...
#else
  ...
#endif

and let the optimizer handle it properly?

I might be able to help you and submit a cleanup patch.

> 
> This adds a seemingly unrelated malloc.  Was that a bug, or just for symmetry,
> or...?

adding an unrelated malloc? where?

The only seemingly unrelated additions would be the memset after an
xmalloc in archival/libunarchive/init_handle.c which is a fix. The patch
breaks cpio extraction without the memset, and probably the other
archivers too, due to the uninitialized file_header struc.

> 
> On the whole, seems reasonable.  I'll try to get it in this evening, which
> means I've got to go debug the tar patch, _after_ I get the llist_t changes
> checked in, which were a spin-off from the sed.c global coalescing brought up
> in the earlier message today, which reminds me that the sed rewrite for
> proper null handling is still languishing in the previous tree...

Thanks!

> Right...

You are doing great... ;-)

> 
> Rob
> --
> Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.