Blame tar-1.14-loneZeroWarning.patch
|
 |
c2c695c |
--- tar-1.15.1/src/list.c.loneZeroWarning 2004-12-21 14:34:05.000000000 +0000
|
|
|
c2c695c |
+++ tar-1.15.1/src/list.c 2005-01-07 11:32:39.348691306 +0000
|
|
|
c2c695c |
@@ -140,6 +140,14 @@
|
|
|
c2c695c |
|
|
|
c2c695c |
if (!ignore_zeros_option)
|
|
|
c2c695c |
{
|
|
|
c2c695c |
+ /*
|
|
|
c2c695c |
+ * According to POSIX tar specs, this is wrong, but on the web
|
|
|
c2c695c |
+ * there are some tar specs that can trigger this, and some tar
|
|
|
c2c695c |
+ * implementations create tars according to that spec. For now,
|
|
|
c2c695c |
+ * let's not be pedantic about issuing the warning.
|
|
|
c2c695c |
+ */
|
|
|
c2c695c |
+#if 0
|
|
|
c2c695c |
+
|
|
|
c2c695c |
char buf[UINTMAX_STRSIZE_BOUND];
|
|
|
c2c695c |
|
|
|
c2c695c |
status = read_header (false);
|
|
|
c2c695c |
@@ -147,6 +155,7 @@
|
|
|
c2c695c |
break;
|
|
|
c2c695c |
WARN ((0, 0, _("A lone zero block at %s"),
|
|
|
c2c695c |
STRINGIFY_BIGINT (current_block_ordinal (), buf)));
|
|
|
c2c695c |
+#endif
|
|
|
c2c695c |
break;
|
|
|
c2c695c |
}
|
|
|
c2c695c |
status = prev_status;
|