Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 16:04:26 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: New tar available for testing (was Re: here is a patch for gnu tar incremental backup...) Message-ID: <20031108210426.GA5429@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <7662849 DOT 1067255132356 DOT JavaMail DOT cyyang AT brunch DOT mit DOT edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7662849.1067255132356.JavaMail.cyyang@brunch.mit.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 06:45:32AM -0500, George Carrette wrote: >Here is a fix for gnu tar incremental backup feature >for the most recent cygwin that uses a 64-bit value for >the type ion_t > >This was done against the sources in release/tar/tar-1.13.25-3-src.tar.bz2 Thanks for the patch but I don't think it is quite right and I don't think it catches everything. I'm uploading a new version of tar for testing now. I'd appreciate feedback (to the cygwin list) on whether it solves the reported problem. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/