Recent Topics
-
UNSOLVED No Updates Shown
Tech Support4 -
PowerArchiver and PACL for macOS
Tech Support3 -
UNSOLVED File Browser: Operations don't trigger UAC
Tech Support7 -
Fast Ring: PowerArchiver 2019 19.00.51/54/57/58/59
Tech Support24 -
SOLVED Problem: Backspace navigation in Explorer mode
Tech Support3 -
UNSOLVED Smart AI: Preferences not intuitive
Tech Support13 -
SOLVED Find file in archive.
Wishlist9 -
UNSOLVED PA 20.00.02 not executing .exe files from archive
Tech Support10 -
PACL 9.0 Beta 2
Tech Support24 -
UNSOLVED Minor UI question
Tech Support7 -
SOLVED Slow Download
General Chat3 -
SOLVED ZIPX-jpeg-compression
Tech Support2 -
SOLVED PA standard 2019 can not create PA-archives
Tech Support2 -
UNSOLVED The PACL does not extract files from the self-extracting archive
Tech Support3 -
UNSOLVED PA 19.00.57 - Drawing issue on file type collumn
Tech Support2 -
UNSOLVED PA 19.00.57 crashes Firefox 69.0.1 in module pashlext64.dll | UserCallWinProcCheckWow
Tech Support18 -
UNSOLVED Include all PowerArchive Toolbox features in the offline installer
Tech Support3 -
UNSOLVED PA 2019 explorer preview window always blank
Tech Support3 -
UNSOLVED Encrypt files inside archive that has already been created [.zipx]
Wishlist5
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.
