X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,TW_CV,TW_XV X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org X-Spam-Processed: mail1.multiplay.co.uk, Thu, 12 Jul 2012 02:17:05 +0100 X-MDRemoteIP: 188.220.16.49 X-Return-Path: prvs=15408cd04b=killing AT multiplay DOT co DOT uk X-Envelope-From: killing AT multiplay DOT co DOT uk X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <447894CEE2E7427F8E0AFC5A206BAD92@multiplay.co.uk> From: "Steven Hartland" To: References: <92B65842B4224F3FA65CE40F3608F7DF AT multiplay DOT co DOT uk> <20120712010353 DOT GB14112 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> Subject: Re: tar won't extract all files when a file with exe extension precedes the same without extension inside the archive Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 02:16:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Faylor" > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 01:39:41AM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote: >>From: "Aaron Schneider" >>> $ touch myfile myfile.exe >>> >>> $ tar -cvf mytar.tar myfile.exe myfile >>> >>> $ tar -xvf mytar.tar >>> >>> Only myfile will be written to the filesystem >> >>Yep, apparently its "by design" :( >> >>It causes us pain regularly so we would like this fairly >>recent change reverted so behaviour is once again predicatable >>and it doesnt break simple takess like extracting archive. > > Yes, yes. The pain. The pain. Danger Will Robinson! > > There really is not much point in rehashing this again under a different > subject. > > If you or anyone would like to offer patches which change the behavior > while keeping everyone happy about .exe handling please do so. Isn't the commit which changed the behaviour stored so where, as this has worked fine in the past, so in theory it could be just applied in reverse? Regards Steve -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple