On Tuesday 19 October 2004 11:10, Paul Bijnens wrote:
>Michael Schaller wrote:
>> I found out that this was a problem of my tar.
>> I backed up with GNUTAR and "compress server fast".
>> AMRESTORE restored the file but TAR (on the server!) gave some
>> horrible messages like yours.
>> I transferred the file to the original machine ("client") and all
>> worked fine.
>> I guess this is a problem of different tar versions ...
>
>That's strange and freightening!  Tar is supposed to be a portable
>format!  Especially gnutar  -- there are indeed differences with
> normal OS-supplied tar formats, but only to overcome limits in
> filesize, path name length etc.; but the same version of gnutar on
> different architectures should be able to read each others files.
>
>I'm not 100% sure what happens if you compile tar on an architecture
>without largefile support on and try to restore a file exceeding
> such a limit.
>
>Are you sure you used the correct version of tar. I've called mine
>"gtar" to avoid confusion with the OS-supplied tar (actually, amanda
>even uses "amgtar", which is a link to the correct version, or a
>wrapper that does some pre/post processing if needed on e.g.
> database DLE's).

We probably should point out to the new bees here, that tar-1.13 is 
indeed broken.  In other words, if your "tar --version" doesn't 
report that its at least 1.13-19, it may not, and probably is not, 
compatible with anything but itself.  (and I'm not sure that 1.13 
could even recover its own output!)

I hate to be boreing and repetitive, but there are those here *now* 
who did not go thru that period of hair removal that 1.13 caused.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.27% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com attorneys please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2004 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.