kernel/git - git - PowerEL Git System

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
René Scharfe	ea2d20d4c2	t5004: avoid using tar for checking emptiness of archive Test 2 of t5004 checks if a supposedly empty tar archive really contains no files. `24676f02` (t5004: fix issue with empty archive test and bsdtar) removed our commit hash to make it work with bsdtar, but the test still fails on NetBSD and OpenBSD, which use their own tar that considers a tar file containing only NULs as broken. Here's what the different archivers do when asked to create a tar file without entries: $ uname -v NetBSD 6.0.1 (GENERIC) $ gtar --version \| head -1 tar (GNU tar) 1.26 $ bsdtar --version bsdtar 2.8.4 - libarchive 2.8.4 $ : >zero.tar $ perl -e 'print "\0" x 10240' >tenk.tar $ sha1 zero.tar tenk.tar SHA1 (zero.tar) = da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709 SHA1 (tenk.tar) = 34e163be8e43c5631d8b92e9c43ab0bf0fa62b9c $ : \| tar cf - -T - \| sha1 da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709 $ : \| gtar cf - -T - \| sha1 34e163be8e43c5631d8b92e9c43ab0bf0fa62b9c $ : \| bsdtar cf - -T - \| sha1 34e163be8e43c5631d8b92e9c43ab0bf0fa62b9c So NetBSD's native tar creates an empty file, while GNU tar and bsdtar both give us 10KB of NULs -- just like git archive with an empty tree. Now let's see how the archivers handle these two kinds of empty tar files: $ tar tf zero.tar; echo $? tar: Unexpected EOF on archive file 1 $ gtar tf zero.tar; echo $? gtar: This does not look like a tar archive gtar: Exiting with failure status due to previous errors 2 $ bsdtar tf zero.tar; echo $? 0 $ tar tf tenk.tar; echo $? tar: Cannot identify format. Searching... tar: End of archive volume 1 reached tar: Sorry, unable to determine archive format. 1 $ gtar tf tenk.tar; echo $? 0 $ bsdtar tf tenk.tar; echo $? 0 NetBSD's tar complains about both, bsdtar happily accepts any of them and GNU tar doesn't like zero-length archive files. So the safest course of action is to stay with our block-of-NULs format which is compatible with GNU tar and bsdtar, as we can't make NetBSD's native tar happy anyway. We can simplify our test, however, by taking tar out of the picture. Instead of extracting the archive and checking for the non-presence of files, check if the file has a size of 10KB and contains only NULs. This makes t5004 pass on NetBSD and OpenBSD. Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	12 years ago
René Scharfe	56ee96572a	t5004: resurrect original empty tar archive test Add a test to verify the emptiness of an archive by extracting its contents. Don't run this test if the version of tar doesn't support archives containing only a comment header, though. The existing check 'tar archive of empty tree is empty' used to work like that (minus the tar capability check) but was changed to depend on the exact representation of empty tar files created by git archive instead of on the behaviour of tar in order to avoid issues with different tar versions. The different approaches test different things: The existing one is for empty trees, for which we know the exact expected output and thus we can simply check it without extracting; the new one is for commits with empty trees, whose archives include stamps and so the more "natural" check by extraction is a better fit because it focuses on the interesting aspect, namely the absence of any archive entries. Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	12 years ago
René Scharfe	71a19a3744	t5004: avoid using tar for checking emptiness of archive Test 2 of t5004 checks if a supposedly empty tar archive really contains no files. `24676f02` (t5004: fix issue with empty archive test and bsdtar) removed our commit hash to make it work with bsdtar, but the test still fails on NetBSD and OpenBSD, which use their own tar that considers a tar file containing only NULs as broken. Here's what the different archivers do when asked to create a tar file without entries: $ uname -v NetBSD 6.0.1 (GENERIC) $ gtar --version \| head -1 tar (GNU tar) 1.26 $ bsdtar --version bsdtar 2.8.4 - libarchive 2.8.4 $ : >zero.tar $ perl -e 'print "\0" x 10240' >tenk.tar $ sha1 zero.tar tenk.tar SHA1 (zero.tar) = da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709 SHA1 (tenk.tar) = 34e163be8e43c5631d8b92e9c43ab0bf0fa62b9c $ : \| tar cf - -T - \| sha1 da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709 $ : \| gtar cf - -T - \| sha1 34e163be8e43c5631d8b92e9c43ab0bf0fa62b9c $ : \| bsdtar cf - -T - \| sha1 34e163be8e43c5631d8b92e9c43ab0bf0fa62b9c So NetBSD's native tar creates an empty file, while GNU tar and bsdtar both give us 10KB of NULs -- just like git archive with an empty tree. Now let's see how the archivers handle these two kinds of empty tar files: $ tar tf zero.tar; echo $? tar: Unexpected EOF on archive file 1 $ gtar tf zero.tar; echo $? gtar: This does not look like a tar archive gtar: Exiting with failure status due to previous errors 2 $ bsdtar tf zero.tar; echo $? 0 $ tar tf tenk.tar; echo $? tar: Cannot identify format. Searching... tar: End of archive volume 1 reached tar: Sorry, unable to determine archive format. $ gtar tf tenk.tar; echo $? 0 $ bsdtar tf tenk.tar; echo $? 0 NetBSD's tar complains about both, bsdtar happily accepts any of them and GNU tar doesn't like zero-length archive files. So the safest course of action is to stay with our block-of-NULs format which is compatible with GNU tar and bsdtar, as we can't make NetBSD's native tar happy anyway. We can simplify our test, however, by taking tar out of the picture. Instead of extracting the archive and checking for the non-presence of files, check if the file has a size of 10KB and contains only NULs. This makes t5004 pass on NetBSD and OpenBSD. Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	12 years ago
René Scharfe	abdb9b2e4f	t5004: ignore pax global header file Versions of tar that don't know pax headers -- like the ones in NetBSD 6 and OpenBSD 5.2 -- extract them as regular files. Explicitly ignore the file created for our global header when checking the list of extracted files, as this is normal and harmless fall-back behaviour. This fixes test 3 of t5004 on these platforms. Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	12 years ago
René Scharfe	24676f02ba	t5004: fix issue with empty archive test and bsdtar bsdtar, which is the default tar on Mac OS X, handles empty archives just fine but reports archives containing only a pax extended header comment as damaged. Work around the issue by explicitly generating the archive for the tree and not the commit, which causes git archive to omit the commit hash comment record from the tar file. Reported-by: BJ Hargrave <bj@bjhargrave.com> Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	12 years ago
Jeff King	bd54cf17a4	archive: handle commits with an empty tree git-archive relies on get_pathspec to convert its argv into a list of pathspecs. When get_pathspec is given an empty argv list, it returns a single pathspec, the empty string, to indicate that everything matches. When we feed this to our path_exists function, we typically see that the pathspec turns up at least one item in the tree, and we are happy. But when our tree is empty, we erroneously think it is because the pathspec is too limited, when in fact it is simply that there is nothing to be found in the tree. This is a weird corner case, but the correct behavior is almost certainly to produce an empty archive, not to exit with an error. This patch teaches git-archive to create empty archives when there is no pathspec given (we continue to complain if a pathspec is given, since it obviously is not matched). It also confirms that the tar and zip writers produce sane output in this instance. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	12 years ago