Mail Archives: cygwin/2001/02/08/00:28:22
> From: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
> [mailto:cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com]On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 7:58 AM
> To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
> Subject: Re: Problem w/ cygwin tar.exe: Unable to tar directories
> beginnin g w/ the letter 'R' in NT 4.0
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 11:18:29PM -0800, Lothan wrote:
> >> From: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
> >> [mailto:cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com]On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 1:16 PM
> >> To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
> >> Subject: Re: Problem w/ cygwin tar.exe: Unable to tar directories
> >> beginnin g w/ the letter 'R' in NT 4.0
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 03:34:37PM -0500, Larry Hall (RFK
> >> Partners, Inc) wrote:
> >> >>The easiest way to check is to write a simple c program which
> >> displays its
> >> >>arguments. This will bypass any echo trickery.
> >> >
> >> >Right. Looks like its not globbing trickery. A small program prints
> >> >out the arguments exactly as they're typed. However, the
> same trickery
> >> >that echo uses appears to be what's affecting tar. So far
> I've noticed
> >> >"bad" behavior in both with \t, \r, and \n. In echo, this is a
> >> >"feature" I'm sure but in tar, I'd say its a bug. I'm back
> to thinking
> >> >the issue is with tar...
> >>
> >> Yep. I agree.
> >
> >Now I'm really curious why I'm not seeing this odd behavior on my system.
> >The only changes I've made to the stock release of cygwin is
> that I dumped
> >sh-utils 1.16 in favor of sh-utils 2.0.
>
> Um. Doesn't echo come from sh-utils?
Yes, but what's that got to do with tar mangling filenames containing \t?
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -