| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Due to the change in directory size accounting, the checksums no
longer matched.
Signed-off-by: David Oberhollenzer <david.oberhollenzer@sigma-star.at>
|
|
Signed-off-by: David Oberhollenzer <david.oberhollenzer@sigma-star.at>
|
|
Signed-off-by: David Oberhollenzer <david.oberhollenzer@sigma-star.at>
|
|
Contrary to previous claims, support for the GNU tar sparse format 1.0
was missing entirely (the newest of their 3 different sparse mapping
formats). This oversight wasn't caught, because the unit test was
compiling the wrong source file and tar2sqfs had no problem processing
the test file because it is still a valid POSIX-ish tar archive (but
the sparse part was missing and the mapping embedded in the file).
Signed-off-by: David Oberhollenzer <david.oberhollenzer@sigma-star.at>
|
|
Signed-off-by: David Oberhollenzer <david.oberhollenzer@sigma-star.at>
|
|
Its purely informational, but make sure other programs don't print
out scary messages that imply the data has been ineficiently.
Signed-off-by: David Oberhollenzer <david.oberhollenzer@sigma-star.at>
|
|
The fragment table data structure has different policies for setting
super block flags which affects the resulting sha512 checksums.
Signed-off-by: David Oberhollenzer <david.oberhollenzer@sigma-star.at>
|
|
Signed-off-by: David Oberhollenzer <david.oberhollenzer@sigma-star.at>
|
