From: René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 21:38:19 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] archive-tar: write extended headers for far-future mtime
Message-ID: <576C56CB.1040701@web.de>
In-Reply-To: <20160623192251.GB32745@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Am 23.06.2016 um 21:22 schrieb Jeff King:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 07:46:25AM +0200, René Scharfe wrote:
>
>> Am 21.06.2016 um 00:54 schrieb René Scharfe:
>>> Am 16.06.2016 um 06:37 schrieb Jeff King:
>>>>     2. System tars that cannot handle pax headers.
>>>
>>> In t5000 there is a simple interpreter for path headers for systems
>>> whose tar doesn't handle them.  Adding one for mtime headers may be
>>> feasible.
>>>
>>> It's just a bit complicated to link a pax header file to the file it
>>> applies to when it doesn't also contain a path header.  But we know that
>>> the mtime of all entries in tar files created by git archive are is the
>>> same, so we could simply read one header and then adjust the mtime of
>>> all files accordingly.
>>
>> This brings me to the idea of using a single global pax header for mtime
>> instead of one per entry.  It reduces the size of the archive and allows for
>> slightly easier testing -- it just fits better since we know that all our
>> mtimes are the same.
>
> Yeah, I had a similar thought while writing it, but wasn't quite sure
> how that was supposed to be formatted. I modeled my output after what
> GNU tar writes, but of course they are expecting a different mtime for
> each file.
>
> I'll look into how global pax headers should look.

Moving the strbuf_append_ext_header() call into 
write_global_extended_header() should be enough.  The changes to the 
test script are a bit more interesting, though.  Perhaps I can come up 
with something over the weekend.

René