From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 3 07:29:04 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50B9616A4CE for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 07:29:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp.dkm.cz (smtp.dkm.cz [62.24.64.34]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B34B543D6A for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 07:29:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from neuhauser@chello.cz) Received: (qmail 34591 invoked by uid 0); 3 Aug 2004 07:29:00 -0000 Received: from r3al61.chello.upc.cz (HELO isis.wad.cz) (213.220.229.61) by smtp.dkm.cz with SMTP; 3 Aug 2004 07:29:00 -0000 Received: by isis.wad.cz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 0F5582FDA01; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 09:29:00 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 09:28:59 +0200 From: Roman Neuhauser To: Tim Kientzle Message-ID: <20040803072859.GA944@isis.wad.cz> Mail-Followup-To: Tim Kientzle , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org References: <410F28E1.8080105@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <410F28E1.8080105@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: tar -l is now (intentionally) broken. X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 07:29:04 -0000 # 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