From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: bug#21111: possibly bogus in binary tarball
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 22:59:05 +0200
Message-ID: <87pp3j6h9i.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <874mkwcspq.fsf@pc102091.liv.ac.uk> <20150722122721.GA6326@debian>
	<87a8uo6vca.fsf@gnu.org> <87615cszue.fsf@pc102091.liv.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52518)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1ZI17b-00035N-04
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:00:16 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1ZI17U-0002jc-O6
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:00:10 -0400
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:55227)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1ZI17U-0002jV-Ln
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:00:04 -0400
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1ZI17U-0002vi-3O
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:00:04 -0400
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-To: bug-guix@gnu.org
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.21111.D21111.143759875811172.done@debbugs.gnu.org>
In-Reply-To: <87615cszue.fsf@pc102091.liv.ac.uk> (Dave Love's message of "Wed,
	22 Jul 2015 21:26:49 +0100")
List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-guix@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
Cc: 21111-done@debbugs.gnu.org

Dave Love <fx@gnu.org> skribis:

> Ludovic Court=C3=A8s <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Interestingly, I do not get this message, both with =E2=80=98tar xf=E2=
=80=99 and
>> =E2=80=98tar xvf=E2=80=99 with GNU=C2=A0tar 1.28.
>>
>> I tried with different timezones, and I can=E2=80=99t trigger it.
>>
>> Dave: What version of GNU=C2=A0tar do you use, and in what timezone?
>>
>> TIA,
>> Ludo=E2=80=99.
>
> It was on RHEL6 in the UK zone
>
>   $ grep -I zone /etc/sysconfig/clock
>   ZONE=3D"Europe/London"
>=20=20=20
> with:
>
>   $ rpm -q tar
>   tar-1.23-11.el6.x86_64
>
> There aren't any obviously-relevant patches in the tar package changelog.

According to the 1.28 manual (info "(tar) warnings"), this specific
warning can be explicitly enabled with --warning=3Dtimestamp.

However, I tried variations of the following command with no luck:

  TZ=3DEurope/London tar --warning=3Dtimestamp --extract -f \
    guix-binary-0.8.3.i686-linux.tar.xz

So maybe the fact that 1.28 doesn=E2=80=99t emit the warning is a bug.

> I think it would be worth a note on the timestamps anyway to avoid
> confusion and make sure they're maintained, if they should be.  (Excuse
> me if that's done somewhere, but I just went to the current installation
> instructions.)

I=E2=80=99ve added this to the installation instructions in commit aafa0df:

   Some versions of GNU tar raise a warning about =E2=80=9Cimplausibly old
   time stamps=E2=80=9D.  This is because all the files in the archive have
   their modification time set to zero (which means January 1st,
   1970.)  This is done on purpose to make sure the archive content is
   independent of its creation time, thus making it reproducible.

Thanks!

Ludo=E2=80=99.