From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 26 21:34:34 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 090A97CC; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 21:34:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ie0-x232.google.com (mail-ie0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C233830F3; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 21:34:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f178.google.com with SMTP id rd18so11933805iec.23 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:34:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=abt78GHsdhE9jF2GphYVnSMXtR+sE9nlisRmpvpiUxs=; b=dZAzDy/yVkacUNoZUbtY+OyLMdHpn9+V4N4qAG3Q3yQp9GkBheIoTTq1q9n2GR6wto nZTz+7EfaGVQbDFGOsqGR4Va9ETpt8rj8tgDqrBHxtbOhvKzYcunyox/GyVPPw+VCMz3 3iutSBSIDGUQxgF4ew7LdWDw4T1EGRIIRHCoHYtq+gLcLM92STx3eOb8FScYTNMNyFhG +uUuGL2qc9/Rj2JXF+Ok77sUCoMtAoXWgEjmizFy8aW2xWSMwS9+nno8rG+cttvRiOKq 6RVH6wh6mkBiOvdjwYljEay7Co6t3DBTBZaZYvERMSo8H0Wi2WJi8cdAHjiaz5rxNM0w YPaQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.207.68 with SMTP id fx4mr10061292icb.67.1409088873223; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:34:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.72.69 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:34:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <44sikjvw37.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> References: <53FCD7B8.5060300@wemm.org> <44sikjvw37.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:34:33 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: did tar(1) loose xz compression support in 11? From: Garrett Cooper To: Lowell Gilbert Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: kientzle@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Current , Peter Wemm , Chris H X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 21:34:34 -0000 On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > "Chris H" 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. I've CCed kientzle@ for input. Thanks! -Garrett