Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 09:28:59 +0200 From: Roman Neuhauser <neuhauser@chello.cz> To: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: tar -l is now (intentionally) broken. Message-ID: <20040803072859.GA944@isis.wad.cz> In-Reply-To: <410F28E1.8080105@freebsd.org> References: <410F28E1.8080105@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
# kientzle@freebsd.org / 2004-08-02 22:55:45 -0700:
> Since POSIX and GNU violently disagree about the
> meaning of "tar -l", and there seem to be strong
> adherents to both interpretations, I'm preparing to
> commit a patch that breaks "tar -l" for everyone:
All I can see is three posts in current@, that's
not much of a discussion (or voting).
I for one, would prefer POSIX compliance. :)
> $ tar -cl foo
> Error: -l has different behaviors in different tars.
> For the GNU behavior, use --one-file-system instead.
> For the POSIX behavior, use --check-links instead.
How about turning this into a warning?
> I don't believe the change to -l will break more than a couple
> of ports. Prior to this change, ports that specified
> -l would get the POSIX behavior even though they
> may have thought they were requesting the GNU
> behavior. This change will force you to unambiguously
> specify the particular behavior you desire.
>
> In short, everyone wins on -o, everyone loses
> on -l. That seems fair. ;-)
I believe "loses" is the keyword here. I don't see how this
would benefit anyone in the long term, sticking with either
side would be better (but please choose POSIX :).
--
If you cc me or remove the list(s) completely I'll most likely ignore
your message. see http://www.eyrie.org./~eagle/faqs/questions.html
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040803072859.GA944>