tar: document xgetcwd test case better

* src/misc.c (normalize_filename): Add commentary for clarity.
* tests/extrac09.at: Retitle test case and add comments for clarity.

diff --git a/src/misc.c b/src/misc.c
index cc2fef85a6c5781904ea9ca496c6ea26de9b1bb9..8e66643829d46fd894a3defd0e52c19de12386a2 100644 (file)
--- a/src/misc.c
+++ b/src/misc.c
@@ -288,7 +288,8 @@ normalize_filename (int cdidx, const char *name)
          this following approach may lead to situations where the same
          file or directory is processed twice under different absolute
          paths without that duplication being detected.  Perhaps we
          this following approach may lead to situations where the same
          file or directory is processed twice under different absolute
          paths without that duplication being detected.  Perhaps we

-         should use dev+ino pairs instead of names?  */
+         should use dev+ino pairs instead of names?  (See listed03.at for
+         a related test case.) */

       const char *cdpath = tar_getcdpath (cdidx);
       size_t copylen;
       bool need_separator;
       const char *cdpath = tar_getcdpath (cdidx);
       size_t copylen;
       bool need_separator;

diff --git a/tests/extrac09.at b/tests/extrac09.at
index d9e2a4b18b64cb121f8f6b34d4d3ffd06f3f230f..b7218ef8f2443b7b6fa8ea9b595382935ce2b4d0 100644 (file)
--- a/tests/extrac09.at
+++ b/tests/extrac09.at
@@ -18,10 +18,20 @@
 # You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 # along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
 
 # You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 # along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
 

-# This checks for the --listed-incremental bug reported by J Chapman Flack at
-# http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-tar/2010-06/msg00000.html
-
-AT_SETUP([no need to save dir with unreadable . and ..])
+# This attempts to cause xgetcwd() to fail, and then checks to see if
+# such failure causes tar to abort even in a case where the results of
+# the call aren't actually needed.
+#
+# (xgetcwd() may fail e.g. on Solaris 10 when "." or ".." are unreadable.
+# On most systems xgetcwd() won't fail even in that situation, but
+# on those systems this test will simply succeed without actually testing
+# anything within tar.)
+#
+# http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-tar/2010-07/msg00045.html
+#
+# (See also 'listed03.at'.)
+
+AT_SETUP([extracting even when . and .. are unreadable])

 AT_KEYWORDS([extract extrac09])
 
 AT_TAR_CHECK([
 AT_KEYWORDS([extract extrac09])
 
 AT_TAR_CHECK([