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;
# 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([