jeremym@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Jeremy Maris) (10/03/90)
From the tar manual entry The limit on file name length is 100 characters. Is this an artificial limitation ? Trying to tar a CAP filesystem causes real problems, eg tar: File name too long: /u/Mac/Public/spr/Match Expts/Single and Double/Results /Double Results/145:2f200res/145 res/.finderinfo Jeremy
grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins) (10/05/90)
In article <3549@syma.sussex.ac.uk> jeremym@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Jeremy Maris) writes: > > From the tar manual entry > The limit on file name length is 100 characters. > > Is this an artificial limitation ? Trying to tar a CAP filesystem causes > real problems, eg The traditional tar header format only allows 100 positions for the file name. If this is changed, then resulting archives are less useful as a least common denominator interchange media. The alternative is to use dump(8) if the intent is for backup purposes or cpio(1) if you need to exchange data with other than BSD derived systems. -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing: domain: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com Commodore, Engineering Department phone: 215-431-9349 (only by moonlite)
frank@croton.enet.dec.com (Frank Wortner) (10/08/90)
It's basically an ill-considered design decision by the original author(s) of tar. The restriction dates back to the first version --- back in V7 days. In any event, tar was such an improvement over its predecesor, tp, that no one really complained. Tp limited file names to 32 characters! If you need to archive or interchange files with long (>100 character) names, you could consider GNU tar, cpio, dump, or, perhaps, a program of your own concoction. You would lose compatibility with regular tar, but it's than not being able to tape those files at all. Frank
frank@croton.enet.dec.com (Frank Wortner) (10/08/90)
Remember my previous article on this subject? Well, forget it! ;-) I said: > If you need to archive or interchange files with long (>100 character) > names, you could consider GNU tar, cpio, dump, or, perhaps, a > program of your own concoction. GNU tar suffers from the same disease as all other tars, although a someone seems to have thought about adding longer file names --- just *thought*, mind you; there's no code dealing with this problem. Cpio can handle names longer than 100 characters. Unfortunately, it has a limitation of 128 characters. :-( Sigh! A Frustrated Frank P.S. My previous article's history lesson about tp, tar, and V7 is correct. I'm old enough to have lived through conversion from the Sixth Edition to the Seventh. 8-)
bachesta@bcstec.UUCP (Jim Bachesta) (10/09/90)
In article <1764@riscy.enet.dec.com> frank@croton.enet.dec.com (Frank Wortner) writes: >It's basically an ill-considered design decision by the original >author(s) of tar. The >restriction dates back to the first version --- back in V7 days. In any >event, tar was >such an improvement over its predecesor, tp, that no one really >complained. Tp limited >file names to 32 characters! > >If you need to archive or interchange files with long (>100 character) >names, you could >consider GNU tar, cpio, dump, or, perhaps, a program of your own >concoction. You would >lose compatibility with regular tar, but it's than not being able to >tape those files at all. > > Frank There is a mistake in the above recommendation. The tar format is a standard. As part of the structure of this standard, it defines a length of 100 characters for the file name and path. GNU tar conforms to this standard. The advantage of GNU tar is in the user interface. It gives the users a much larger number of options in how to chose the files to extract or archive. If you use "cpio" the limit is 128 characters. Not much better than the tar limit. One options is to change the structure in GNU tar to use more characters in the name. This will of course make you non standard. I constantly hit this same limit and would appreciate it if someone comes up with a better solution than "non-standard" formats. BSD dump is ok, but only for complete file systems, not practical if you have a small file set to archive. Jim Bachesta System Manager Boeing P3-Update IV project ARPA:bachesta@trident.boeing.com
mjr@hussar.dco.dec.com (Marcus J. Ranum) (10/09/90)
In article <469@bcstec.UUCP> bachesta@bcstec.UUCP (Jim Bachesta) writes: >There is a mistake in the above recommendation. The tar format is a >standard. As part of the structure of this standard, it defines a length >of 100 characters for the file name and path. On the other hand, if someone develops something significantly better, and enough people start using that, it'll be a "standard" as well. It might not even have the standard limitations. :) Remember - standardization is an ongoing process - much like evolution. mjr.
pacek@millipore.com (Dan Pacek) (10/31/90)
I just recieved my Ultrix 4.0 patch tape and it contains a new tar that has this and other REALLY interesting bug fixes. I hear that version 4.1 is in field test already, you may want to wait for it or ask dec for the patch. Dan Pacek