From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 27 00:35:31 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 B949290 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 00:35:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from h2.funkthat.com (gate2.funkthat.com [208.87.223.18]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "funkthat.com", Issuer "funkthat.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93BA53702 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 00:35:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from h2.funkthat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by h2.funkthat.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id s7R0ZF9W031244 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:35:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jmg@h2.funkthat.com) Received: (from jmg@localhost) by h2.funkthat.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id s7R0ZEAh031243; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:35:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jmg) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:35:14 -0700 From: John-Mark Gurney To: Chris H Subject: Re: did tar(1) loose xz compression support in 11? Message-ID: <20140827003514.GM71691@funkthat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Chris H , Lowell Gilbert , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Peter Wemm References: <53FCD7B8.5060300@wemm.org> <44sikjvw37.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <6c36b18e9cf5d2dcd7b251bb385babbd.authenticated@ultimatedns.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6c36b18e9cf5d2dcd7b251bb385babbd.authenticated@ultimatedns.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 7.2-RELEASE i386 X-PGP-Fingerprint: 54BA 873B 6515 3F10 9E88 9322 9CB1 8F74 6D3F A396 X-Files: The truth is out there X-URL: http://resnet.uoregon.edu/~gurney_j/ X-Resume: http://resnet.uoregon.edu/~gurney_j/resume.html X-TipJar: bitcoin:13Qmb6AeTgQecazTWph4XasEsP7nGRbAPE X-to-the-FBI-CIA-and-NSA: HI! HOW YA DOIN? can i haz chizburger? X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.2 (h2.funkthat.com [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:35:15 -0700 (PDT) Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Peter Wemm , Lowell Gilbert 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: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 00:35:31 -0000 Chris H wrote this message on Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 16:32 -0700: > > "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. > Thank you, Lowell. For your extremely informative reply. > Curious. The man page I read from my freshly built 11-CURRENT indicates > the following: > > xz:compression-level > A decimal integer from 0 to 9 specifying the xz compres- > sion level. > > As I have always read that (interpreted it). It meant: > xz: (0-9) > Which is what I've always used. I haven't grepped ports||src > yet. But if it makes any difference, it came from src -- build/install > world. > I'll do some poking around. But all my other boxes (RELENG_8 && RELENG_9) > use xz:. > > Thanks again, Lowell. For taking the time to respond. Greatly appreciated. Could it be that previous versions were ignoring the option and not giving you an error? It looks like that was the case on my 9.1-PR box: $tar -cJf test.txz *.patch *.c testcrypt *.h; ls -l test.txz -rw------- 1 jmg wheel 38956 Aug 26 17:33 test.txz $tar --options xz:9 -cJf test.txz *.patch *.c testcrypt *.h; ls -l test.txz -rw------- 1 jmg wheel 38956 Aug 26 17:33 test.txz $tar --options xz:1 -cJf test.txz *.patch *.c testcrypt *.h; ls -l test.txz -rw------- 1 jmg wheel 38956 Aug 26 17:33 test.txz $tar --options xz:compression-level=1 -cJf test.txz *.patch *.c testcrypt *.h; ls -l test.txz -rw------- 1 jmg wheel 41772 Aug 26 17:34 test.txz $tar --options xz:compression-level=9 -cJf test.txz *.patch *.c testcrypt *.h; ls -l test.txz -rw------- 1 jmg wheel 38956 Aug 26 17:34 test.txz -- John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579 "All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."