Recent Topics
-
UNSOLVED PA 19.00.57 (and earlier) Duplicate files possible in .pa archive in some cases.
Tech Support3 -
Fast Ring: PowerArchiver 2019 19.00.51/54/57
Tech Support6 -
UNSOLVED GUI: In need of a complete overhaul
Tech Support3 -
UNSOLVED GUI: move label
Tech Support3 -
UNSOLVED GUI: too much frames
Tech Support2 -
UNSOLVED PowerArchiver shell extensions possibly crashing windows explorer.exe
Tech Support10 -
UNSOLVED Encrypt files inside archive that has already been created [.zipx]
Wishlist3 -
UNSOLVED PA 19.00.51 / Access Violation
Tech Support7 -
SOLVED PA 19.00.51 - bug / unwanted code execution
Tech Support8 -
SOLVED Strange file size seen in 2019 portable
Tech Support5 -
SOLVED Fast Extract large files directly to target directory
Wishlist4 -
UNSOLVED Forums: double Search option in the settings (left side hamburger menu)
Tech Support1 -
SOLVED Serpent-256 Encryption for PAE/PAE2
Wishlist14 -
UNSOLVED Moving Files in to a 7Zip archive
Tech Support2 -
UNSOLVED hang when using the Test function with 7z archives
Tech Support5 -
UNSOLVED Some buttons in "Modern Look" are too small
Translations3 -
Fast Ring: PowerArchiver 2019 19.00.30/31/32/33/39/40/41/43/44/46/47/48/49
Tech Support23 -
UNSOLVED Searching for the specific Regkeys needed to default new installations in Modern Windows 10 not dark view
Tech Support2 -
UNSOLVED E-Mail problem
Tech Support7
TAR Archive Support Still Has Problems
-
I downloaded a TAR archive today and I immediately noticed some problems with the way PA handled it. First off, PowerArchiver seemed to be quite sluggish (used a high amount of CPU and RAM), this I could live with if it could handle the archive properly. However, the file listing showed me instantly that it was unable to properly be handled. Many of the filenames were cut off and there were @LongLink files listed. I decided to attempt to have PA extract the archive anyways. First I was given an error that said “Invalid argument to date encode.”, so I clicked Ok and was then asked if I wanted to overwrite the Read-Only @LongLink file. No matter my response to that, I only get 2 of the smaller files extracted from the archive. The archive is not corrupt as I have copied it to my linux machine and it extracted just fine with “tar -xf filename.tar”. I wouldn’t mind sharing this archive for testing purposes but it is about 120MB. Any help would be appreciated.
-
Bump.
-
Well, without the tar it is a bit difficult to identify the problem (I haven’t experienced this - but thatprobably means little).
Could you perhaps provide a (complete) listing of the contents if not the tar itself (curious about the reference to @LongLink )?
-
I was able to reproduce it - it seems that the issue is with filenames+path over 255 characters (Windows limit), which should not be the issue even if there is an Windows limitation there.
We will have to report it engine developers, since it is definetly an engine issue.
Thanks for finding it.regards,
-
Actually, the archive name itself was about 50 characters and contained filenames that were 50-60 characters each that were all in a directory which had a name of about 50 characters. Even if these were all added up I don’t think any of the files got near to the 255 limit.
Unfortunately, it appears as though I allowed my carelessness to get the best of me and I am no longer in possession of this archive (neither is my recycling bin).
At least one problem was found and should be fixed.
-
Not sure if this is the same problem (or the same solution), but it appears that there is a filename length restriction for TAR format.
name = 94 chars (98 with ext) OK
name = 95 chars (99 with ext) fails - TAR is not created.Note: No Path is being stored. Other compression fromats work OK with name = 95 chars (99 with ext).
(checked in 9.00.34 test - same) - see attachment.
-
Same problem.
We have recorded it and will check it for 9.1.
-
I came across another archive with a very similar issue described in the first post, now that I have it I decided to take a screenshot of it to hopefully help with debugging (in case its not already been fully identified).
Feel free to ignore the what type of content is actually in the archive.
-
The issue has already been fully identified - we have addressed this problem for 9.1
-
Ok, sorry for the redundancy, thanks for fixing the problem, looking forward to 9.1.
