Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 18:31:03 -0700 From: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org> To: "David G. Lawrence" <dg@dglawrence.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tar -l versus gtar -l Message-ID: <410D9957.5020308@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20040802010910.GA63402@nexus.dglawrence.com> References: <40F963D8.6010201@freebsd.org> <200407291159.i6TBxKj01347@Mail.NOSPAM.DynDNS.dK> <4109BA1B.7090609@freebsd.org> <20040730080026.GA46093@nexus.dglawrence.com> <410A78B1.4030608@kientzle.com> <20040801221508.GF75481@nexus.dglawrence.com> <410D894D.7000209@freebsd.org> <20040802010910.GA63402@nexus.dglawrence.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David G. Lawrence wrote:
>
> Well...the SUSv2 specification for tar may not have been the best standard
> to adhere to. The change of behavior for the 'l' option on create is going
> to seriously bite a lot of people because it majorly affects what is
> archived.
I'm reluctant to contradict the one serious
attempt to standardize tar simply because gtar
ignored that effort.
I would rather just disable the -l option entirely;
that way, people would get an error message instead
of having the tar program behave unexpectedly.
Would you be happier with this behavior?
$ tar -cl /foo
Error: -l is ambiguous
If you want GNU tar -l, use --one-file-system instead.
If you want POSIX tar -l, use --link-warn instead.
Tim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?410D9957.5020308>