Tymshare PDP-10 tapes

[Tony Aiuto]

On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 11:48 PM Jim Carpenter <jim at deitygraveyard.com>
wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 8:07 PM Tony Aiuto via cctalk
> <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
> > I think that is an artifact of the files being created with the wrong
> names.
> > For example, with tape 169249, after you skip the UFDs, tito -t prints
> >
> >    (SYS)            .SHR    1977-01-26 22:22   [1,4]
> >    (SYS)            .LOW    1977-01-26 22:23   [1,4]
> >    (SYS)            .SHR    1986-08-19 03:53   [1,4]
> >    (SYS)            .LOW    1975-10-24 14:52   [1,4]
> >    (SYS)            .SAV    1964-01-02 00:01   [1,4]
> >    (SYS)            .SAV    1964-01-02 00:01   [1,4]
> >
> > All the file names are missing. That seems not right.
>
> Very not right, because this is what tito -t is giving me:
>
>    (SYS)          PIP   .SHR    1977-01-26 22:22   [1,4]
>    (SYS)          PIP   .LOW    1977-01-26 22:23   [1,4]
>    (SYS)          LOGINN.SHR    1986-08-19 03:53   [1,4]
>    (SYS)          COBOL .LOW    1975-10-24 14:52   [1,4]
>    (SYS)          BINCON.SAV    1964-01-02 00:01   [1,4]
>    (SYS)          VPDATA.SAV    1964-01-02 00:01   [1,4]
>
> Those are the first 6 after the UFDs, and extensions and
> date/timestamps match yours. I don't have any, at least on 169249,
> missing the first part of the file name.
>
> Jim
>

Well. I'm stumped right now.  I verified the tape checksum again, and even
got a fresh copy from http://vtda.org/bits/software/DEC/PDP-10/tymshare/.
That is not the problem.

I'm building tito on a generic Debian linux (x86_64, debian 4.19, gcc
8.3.0) so I doubt this is a portability problem.  I'll try again next
weekend.