On Monday 22 September 2003 03:31 pm, Jamie Heilman wrote:

This is usually indicitive of Zope being unpacked with something other than GNU tar.

You know, for the frequency this problem occurs you'd think something could actually be done about it that would solve it forever. Waiting for all the versions of tar in the world to suddenly agree on how to handle path names containing over 100 characters isn't a terribly effective approach. What would be really swift, is if Zope Corp just restructured their code so there were no longer any paths that exceeded said limit.

Well, since Gnu Tar is available to everyone, I think it *is* a worldwide open standard on how to handle long pathnames in tar files. Other tar programs apparently do not handle them at all. So I think there's a pretty clear cut case here that those other tar programs are simply broken. And anyway, how many tar programs are you aware of? The broken tar I know of is specifically the System 5 derived tar that comes with Solaris -- are there others? The lesson is, if you have Solaris, your first step is to throw out all the utilities and install the Gnu versions. They are AFAICT, without exception better software. Otherwise, while you're at it, you might as well convert all the filenames to 8.3 notation since DOS and VMS can't handle long filenames. Sorry for the sarcasm, but I don't have much sympathy for pandering to broken programs. There's too much *useful* stuff ZC could be spending their time on, to waste energy working around broken and obsolete utilities. I'd *much* rather see a solid Zope 3 with component/interface model as promised. Just my two cents, ;-) Terry -- Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com ) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.anansispaceworks.com

On Monday 22 September 2003 09:07 pm, Dave Hall wrote:

On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 03:56:51PM -0500, Terry Hancock wrote:

...

On Monday 22 September 2003 03:31 pm, Jamie Heilman wrote:

...

This is usually indicitive of Zope being unpacked with something other than GNU tar.

Well, since Gnu Tar is available to everyone, <snip>

So are most Windows viruses, that doesn't mean I should install it.

There are many operating systems that do not ship with GNU tar including OpenBSD. If old style tar works, then there is no need to upgrade.

I agree completely. Unfortunately, your "if clause" is false: old style tar does not work. ;-) Cheers, Terry -- Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com ) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.anansispaceworks.com

On Monday 22 September 2003 09:23 pm, Jamie Heilman wrote:

I didn't say anything about standards, but since you bring it up http://www.gnu.org/manual/tar/html_node/tar_117.html#SEC112

Okay. Touche. But I still find it hard to accept the idea that a program that can handle an arbitrarily long pathname should be considered the "wrong" implementation. That's obviously what you would intuitively expect out of an archiver program.

There is a note about tar pecularites in the FAQ document inside the tarball... which is fine I guess, but its evidently not enough. I think the real problem is that the symptoms of the problem tend vary, sometimes the breakage doesn't manifest as a checksum error, or it scrolls off the console too fast to see or something, so people invariably end up asking the list. Anyway, I sort of doubt the source will change, but it would avoid the problem, and it would make it easier on the newbies. Somebody told me this community was into that.

Hmm. Well, modifying it so that it would break more spectacularly would probably be good: One could imagine having a check for a file which happens to have a long pathname and raising an exception with a "Corrupted archive extraction -- please be sure you are using a Gnu compatible tar program" message. But the directory structure of a program is of practical documentary use to those who work on it, and even to people like me who simply use it for reference. I would find Zope unusable without the ability to find stuff in the source code, and if "AccessControl" suddenly became "AC" or something, purely for brevity, the code would become much less readable for me. So I'd be really unhappy if the code was actually modified to accomodate tar programs with path limits. Cheers, Terry -- Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com ) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.anansispaceworks.com

Terry Hancock wrote:

So I'd be really unhappy if the code was actually modified to accomodate tar programs with path limits.

You think you would be huh? The irony is the code that keeps triggering the problem is practically all in TextIndex which now has multiple replacements that are billed as being better than the original. So not only would it be a relatively straight-forward change, it might get done eventually due to deprecation anyway (although afaik there are no plans to deprecate the old TextIndex support). -- Jamie Heilman http://audible.transient.net/~jamie/ "...thats the metaphorical equivalent of flopping your wedding tackle into a lion's mouth and flicking his lovespuds with a wet towel, pure insanity..." -Rimmer

Andreas Jung wrote:

There is no reason to deprecate TextIndex as long as it is used (e.g. in the CMF as default textindex!).

OK, I wasn't clear on the exact role played by TextIndex at this point, as you've got ZCTextIndex and your TextIndexNG, and SearchIndex is still somewhere back in the weeds too.

Fixing the tools is the solution and not building a workaround by removing code.

Just moving. I'm not suggesting removing the code is a good idea, I just postulated it might be deprecated in the future and this would all become moot, but from the sounds of it thats not too likely. -- Jamie Heilman http://audible.transient.net/~jamie/ "Paranoia is a disease unto itself, and may I add, the person standing next to you may not be who they appear to be, so take precaution." -Sathington Willoughby

What about using a TAR that works for your platform? Stinking or buggy software is not an argument for restructuring the Zope source tree. -aj --On Montag, 22. September 2003 13:31 Uhr -0700 Jamie Heilman <jamie@audible.transient.net> wrote:

Arenz, Ralph wrote:

...

ImportError: No module named Splitter

This is usually indicitive of Zope being unpacked with something other than GNU tar.

You know, for the frequency this problem occurs you'd think something could actually be done about it that would solve it forever. Waiting for all the versions of tar in the world to suddenly agree on how to handle path names containing over 100 characters isn't a terribly effective approach. What would be really swift, is if Zope Corp just restructured their code so there were no longer any paths that exceeded said limit.

-- Jamie Heilman http://audible.transient.net/~jamie/ "Paranoia is a disease unto itself, and may I add, the person standing next to you may not be who they appear to be, so take precaution." -Sathington Willoughby

_______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )