Re: git-archive's wrong documentation: really write pax rather than tar

From: Hin-Tak Leung <htl10@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Aug 4, 2011, 18:33 UTC
Message-ID: <1312482802.68635.YahooMailClassic@web29518.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E3ADCCB.6080206@lsrfire.ath.cx>

--- On Thu, 4/8/11, René Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> wrote:

> From: René Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx>

<snipped>

Show 28 quoted lines

> Ah, here it is:
> 
>   https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/src/library/utils/R/tar.R
> 
> It's the ctype handling in function untar2 that rejects
> unknown entry types.
> 
> For reference, the documentation of the pax format
> including a
> suggestion to treat unknown types like regular files can be
> found here
> (search for "typename"):
> 
>   http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/pax.html
> 
> > I think I tried the tree example and the R code also
> didn't like it
> > much... may be I'll give it another try.
> 
> Did you try adding a ":" to the tree argument, e.g. this:
> 
>     $ git archive HEAD:
> 
> instead of this?
> 
>     $ git archive HEAD
> 
> René

That's better! With a HEAD: , that code does a lot of:

Warning in untar2(tarfile, files, list, exdir) :
  checksum error for entry 'file...'

for each file it tries to extract, but at least it is extracting the files. I wasn't entirely sure about the notation used in the man page - is "v1.4.0^{tree}" same as "v1.4.0:" ? "HEAD:" is clearer, as most people has a HEAD...