Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 07:02:27 -0700 (PDT) From: "Chris H" <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> To: "Tim Kientzle" <tim@kientzle.com> Cc: freebsd hackers <hackers@freebsd.org>, freebsd current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: did tar(1) loose xz compression support in 11? Message-ID: <b5dbd7c50a71909c7341a92f78df78c9.authenticated@ultimatedns.net> In-Reply-To: <134A4303-3421-4A7B-9EB6-74D58B939217@kientzle.com> References: <cc981009f9a7332a7aad557c6a2ed216.authenticated@ultimatedns.net> <134A4303-3421-4A7B-9EB6-74D58B939217@kientzle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > On Aug 26, 2014, at 11:05 AM, Chris H <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> wrote: > >> Greetings, >> I'm currently testing 11. My build / install is from about 2 days ago. >> I generally use xz compression, when creating archives. But when I >> attempt the following: >> >> tar -cvJ --options xz:9 -f ./archive-name.tar.xz ./file >> >> it returns the following: >> >> tar: Undefined option: `xz:9' >> >> This has always worked in previous versions. Has the syntax changed, >> and the man(1) pages just haven't caught up? > > I can’t see any evidence in libarchive’s source that this ever worked. > > However, there was some work done recently to improve error reporting from the options > processor. It’s quite possible that —options xz:9 used to just be ignored and now it’s > reporting an error. > > Tim On a hunch. I performed a similar test. I added STAGE to the following port. So I'll test here. # tar -cvJ --options xz:9 -f posadis-xz9.tar.xz ./posadis/ a ./posadis a ./posadis/files a ./posadis/pkg-plist a ./posadis/Makefile a ./posadis/distinfo a ./posadis/pkg-descr a ./posadis/files/patch-Makefile.in a ./posadis/files/patch-configure.in # tar -cvJ --options xz:1 -f posadis-xz1.tar.xz ./posadis/ a ./posadis a ./posadis/files a ./posadis/pkg-plist a ./posadis/Makefile a ./posadis/distinfo a ./posadis/pkg-descr a ./posadis/files/patch-Makefile.in a ./posadis/files/patch-configure.in unlike the previous examples, and arguments. I used the v switch. Presuming that would provide feedback on any anomalous usage. However. The following proves otherwise: # ls -la -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 2380 Aug 27 06:47 posadis-xz1.tar.xz -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 2380 Aug 27 06:47 posadis-xz9.tar.xz (performed on a RELENG_9 box) As one can see, nothing (compression level(s)) were UNchanged. So the verdict is in; the _recent_ changes provide the needed feedback where anomalous usage is concerned. Short version; tar now works correctly -- it's fixed. :) Humble opinion; the man(1) pages could be somewhat more concise. Humble request; would it be possible to make [bsd]tar(1) honor the short-hand version of options? Thank you, Tim, and everyone else, for all your thoughtful replies. --Chris > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b5dbd7c50a71909c7341a92f78df78c9.authenticated>