From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 100412 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2016 10:12:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 100393 invoked by uid 89); 24 Jan 2016 10:12:54 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-92.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,KHOP_DYNAMIC,RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT,RCVD_IN_PBL,RDNS_DYNAMIC,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=Maintainer, Hx-languages-length:934, H*i:sk:878u3gx, H*MI:sk:878u3gx X-HELO: calimero.vinschen.de Received: from ipbcc05c50.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de (HELO calimero.vinschen.de) (188.192.92.80) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 24 Jan 2016 10:12:53 +0000 Received: by calimero.vinschen.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id 37DC3A8040F; Sun, 24 Jan 2016 11:12:51 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:55:00 -0000 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: snapshots (archive files) are too big ... Why? Message-ID: <20160124101251.GC13479@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <20160123181053.GF3268@calimero.vinschen.de> <878u3gxde8.fsf@Rainer.invalid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gr/z0/N6AeWAPJVB" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <878u3gxde8.fsf@Rainer.invalid> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-SW-Source: 2016-01/txt/msg00326.txt.bz2 --gr/z0/N6AeWAPJVB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 933 On Jan 23 21:13, Achim Gratz wrote: > Corinna Vinschen writes: > > I found out why this happens, I just don't know why it only occurs since > > 2015-07-20. >=20 > Looks like this patch >=20 > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/tar.git/commit/?id=3D132f2c79628f= f5f11bb7d41c5c34f94228d63c54 >=20 > and the following two fixups would be a likely source of that change in > behaviour and it was probably the following package update that threw > the script off course. Looks like you nailed it. It seems these patches have gone upstream in the first place, there just hasn't been a new tar version released yet. Eric, any chance you could include these patches in a new tar release as well to catch up with Fedora (or nudge the tar maintainers to release 1.29)? Thanks, Corinna --=20 Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat --gr/z0/N6AeWAPJVB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-length: 819 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWpKOjAAoJEPU2Bp2uRE+gmR4P/jol8AouUjsENeFBn5EiAPdd NjwmTeK5SLS/pLMnioUH2elXItl7ZBPBLbezLgGwLG3Hxd4cqAy0tzCtoYFct8A+ 5S7I9K/DQiO+Dysr/u/QNVRcxmeEvyU17wGP0KVgVKRqmnPq4y1WDws7ESJ0bMXM ZJaNNVyOfktrteqy+/E/zSkpiV26Vx7MH+5/c1Wlt1dEW4mCf239Sqa+y8UdFZ9k E2qEJ/e0LoEiX380cfBT53BtyQvKY28LtHaDl2JiTZU1E9Hs6PJc+tlVpvFUtcvT X5hKnZbtW2SPl5Xretq7g8H36QCajAhL/jrNnx1LRbuj49BPC9U5x3rmo8KpX+RY FtjJ75gVnUJRxjdZhFlCe4+5lfaGeD0BUsMsQfZGXRABCpi7Md+/khMRPl7lDErc 5BTLO8VCkZunDU/gCOrz4mqeMciJEvuYer1jnwWnVpFbFMem6oWiUX5PICzfPshr n4wc/RhMuhCvs97Np+45MydBK5zKImWYTa1dSmctq9LJvv66DfWlULshzIp3zrCX +RxLfmFDzGDH7B1/BSIWWnczSq+lLv/l8Kbwn6xoe5WzA+hd/gKNKCu73QoWa3IK iAT5s3RTFi/7B3fo8AvlVbIIkzNbKHAEyoafzv2cSwXesWwUh+eJURlr2DvlSk94 Th18A/rwr++k4U1/KxR7 =qEWU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --gr/z0/N6AeWAPJVB--