From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 27 02:10:09 2014 Return-Path: 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 C65599CA for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 02:10:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pd0-f173.google.com (mail-pd0-f173.google.com [209.85.192.173]) (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 9893A3EF4 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 02:10:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pd0-f173.google.com with SMTP id w10so23220318pde.18 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:10:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=Miekn/tUYH0H2poIjublzIQoSisZ6XlDR/Mp1T2D/yo=; b=QJFiBqZn6Ft0QOwjG/4aoTYlN8x+8PDUiNdCF/gXEcIlIAcGspRR3JjL3A9cNXlHNK VFkJYEBXa2DyeHKaeCrRjXDtaloh8f26E5FM1Bgb6Ko9jfDTI4G/JnVXH7Q9V3Uh+ujN 47fqq6aiQbn1eKaOUeI1pBxbkfb+Spbl0TvhgQ+zRAl5wpFAK4X5DxG20f845uWnuoF3 Ipo2LKNWwy4PDIDMPki2FW34nSKETHL+cPHtRe3I1lQLAe28HxGsJvcCYNln0rd3Wc4o xiiaA1hOi86jcYa2ttJIBWL8FvcaslaDsHhkhfpyzb/1BDpqn67lzhpKib9S8K6APpsj 0VBw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnIGMUJai13g82DPDFCuRGMFJgPpC6UK6ly3ZGLNdXjEWQ/o17pH4AJkRUEci1elQo0av7q X-Received: by 10.70.103.42 with SMTP id ft10mr13305856pdb.2.1409105403746; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:10:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (c-24-6-220-224.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.6.220.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ow2sm7199738pdb.27.2014.08.26.19.10.02 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:10:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: did tar(1) loose xz compression support in 11? Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Tim Kientzle X-Priority: 3 (Normal) In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:10:00 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <134A4303-3421-4A7B-9EB6-74D58B939217@kientzle.com> References: To: Chris H X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Cc: freebsd hackers , freebsd current 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 02:10:09 -0000 On Aug 26, 2014, at 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: >=20 > tar -cvJ --options xz:9 -f ./archive-name.tar.xz ./file >=20 > it returns the following: >=20 > tar: Undefined option: `xz:9' >=20 > This has always worked in previous versions. Has the syntax changed, > and the man(1) pages just haven't caught up? I can=92t see any evidence in libarchive=92s source that this ever = worked. However, there was some work done recently to improve error reporting = from the options processor. It=92s quite possible that =97options xz:9 = used to just be ignored and now it=92s reporting an error. Tim