Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mv18M-0001XP-Ta for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2021 17:53:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mv18L-0004bm-CL for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2021 17:53:37 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mv18L-0004bd-56 for pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2021 17:53:37 +0000 Received: from relay11.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.178.231]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mv18I-00027f-83 for pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2021 17:53:36 +0000 Received: (Authenticated sender: adsend@dunslane.net) by relay11.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D2388100002; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 17:53:30 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2021 12:53:29 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.0 Subject: Re: pgsql: Check that we have a working tar before trying to use it Content-Language: en-US To: Tom Lane Cc: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org References: <3655283.1638977975@sss.pgh.pa.us> <2e118a11-6936-21ec-6782-e9dbb20972c2@dunslane.net> <3657697.1638980149@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3660797.1638983124@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Andrew Dunstan In-Reply-To: <3660797.1638983124@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk On 12/8/21 12:05, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan writes: >> Actually, I think it makes more sense to simply revert this. bowerbird, >> like all buildfarm animals, has a working tar. > Right, it doesn't seem like tar is the biggest lift when setting up > a buildfarm critter. > >> It's just that this one >> is apparently seriously confused by using paths with a drive spec. > Hm, so how would this test have handled that anyway? > > It would have passed the test and failed the invocation as before. It turns out that the tar being used is from the (old) MsysGit installation. So I'm rearranging the path so it finds the system tar instead. That should take care of things. (testing first before I do anything else). On my initial test the system tar handled paths with drive specs just fine. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com