From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 5 16:45:39 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0D2D16A4CE; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 16:45:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from VARK.MIT.EDU (VARK.MIT.EDU [18.95.3.179]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 415C643D48; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 16:45:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from VARK.MIT.EDU (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by VARK.MIT.EDU (8.13.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j35GjONH051492; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:45:24 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: (from das@localhost) by VARK.MIT.EDU (8.13.3/8.13.1/Submit) id j35GjObj051491; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:45:24 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:45:23 -0400 From: David Schultz To: Michael Nottebrock Message-ID: <20050405164523.GA51452@VARK.MIT.EDU> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Nottebrock , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, Tim Kientzle , "Conrad J. Sabatier" , current@FreeBSD.ORG References: <4243B57D.5050204@freebsd.org> <20050405114907.GA49792@VARK.MIT.EDU> <4252AFD0.8090701@freebsd.org> <200504051833.08198.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200504051833.08198.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> cc: "Conrad J. Sabatier" cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG cc: Tim Kientzle cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Heads up: gtar gone from base system X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 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, 05 Apr 2005 16:45:39 -0000 On Tue, Apr 05, 2005, Michael Nottebrock wrote: > On Tuesday, 5. April 2005 17:33, Tim Kientzle wrote: > > David Schultz wrote: > > > ... a quick fix would be to accept --use-compress-program as > > > an undocumented option and ignore it. > > > > Tempting, tempting.... ;-/ > > Not one bit, IMHO. I can't imagine a single case where something would use > --use-compress-program and it would continue to work if the tar in question > simply ignored it. Why not? If libarchive supports the compression format, it will automatically detect it and perform the appropriate decompression. > In ark's case, ark would just fail to extract an archive > completely silently, making it harder to diagnose what's going wrong. Why? If libarchive doesn't support the compression format, then it will fail and ark should detect this.