From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Aug 26 20:23:47 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3B6DF75
 for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 20:23:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from be-well.ilk.org (be-well.ilk.org [23.30.133.173])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A7E83987
 for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 20:23:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by be-well.ilk.org (Postfix, from userid 1147)
 id 98FBA33C22; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:23:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-current-local@be-well.ilk.org>
To: "Chris H" <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com>
Subject: Re: did tar(1) loose xz compression support in 11?
References: <cc981009f9a7332a7aad557c6a2ed216.authenticated@ultimatedns.net>
 <53FCD7B8.5060300@wemm.org>
 <dc60c6e467412ae8c8c4ba043039b270.authenticated@ultimatedns.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:23:40 -0400
In-Reply-To: <dc60c6e467412ae8c8c4ba043039b270.authenticated@ultimatedns.net>
 (Chris H.'s message of "Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:28:13 -0700 (PDT)")
Message-ID: <44sikjvw37.fsf@be-well.ilk.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (berkeley-unix)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
 <freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-current>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
 <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 20:23:47 -0000

"Chris H" <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> writes:

>> On 8/26/14 11:05 AM, Chris H 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 use:
>> tar -cJ --options xz:compression-level=1
>> .. on head. Are you using the right syntax?
> Apparently not. Using your example works as expected.
> RELENG_8, and RELENG_9 use short-hand;
> tar -cvJ --options xz:9
>
> Why/when the change to long-hand? Seems a shame. Now I
> get to modify all my scripts, and such. :P Altho I
> don't suppose it'd be a big deal to back out (revert) the
> changes made to tar(1). :)

I can't find any changes that would make the syntax change.  At least,
not in quite a long while.  Therefore, this change may not be
intentional. However, I looked at the the manual page from 9.3, and its
description of the features looks the same as on the latest HEAD, and
*doesn't* look like leaving out a "key" (in this case,
"compression-level") is ever compliant.

You might try the latest (or older) libarchive from the ports, and
compare its behaviour. Also, there are a number (amusingly many, in
fact) of other ways of specifying these parameters that may be more
convenient for you, so another look throught the tar(1) manual might
save you a few minutes.

Good luck.