From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 3 10:50:43 2004 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 3660916A4CE for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 10:50:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp.dkm.cz (smtp.dkm.cz [62.24.64.34]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F23C743D55 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 10:50:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from neuhauser@chello.cz) Received: (qmail 77147 invoked by uid 0); 3 Aug 2004 10:50:41 -0000 Received: from r3al61.chello.upc.cz (HELO isis.wad.cz) (213.220.229.61) by smtp.dkm.cz with SMTP; 3 Aug 2004 10:50:40 -0000 Received: by isis.wad.cz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 953E02FDA01; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:50:40 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:50:40 +0200 From: Roman Neuhauser To: Johny Mattsson Message-ID: <20040803105040.GA1620@isis.wad.cz> Mail-Followup-To: Johny Mattsson , Tim Kientzle , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <410F28E1.8080105@freebsd.org> <410F5A99.3000505@earthmagic.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <410F5A99.3000505@earthmagic.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: Tim Kientzle cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: tar -l is now (intentionally) broken. 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, 03 Aug 2004 10:50:43 -0000 # lonewolf-freebsd@earthmagic.org / 2004-08-03 19:27:53 +1000: > As someone said, adhering to standards is a Good Thing (tm), and I think > it's a worthwile aim. Making this error (and yes, I do agree that it > should be an error, not a warning) transitional, we pave the way for > becoming standards compliant, while still not destroying file systems > nilly-willy. > > I won't claim to know what a reasonable timeframe would be, but perhaps > have this message in 5.3, and then change the behaviour for 5.4 or 5.5? AFAIK 5.3 is to be the point where 5.x becomes STABLE, and it would not be smart to change the behavior after that. I don't know whether there's still enough time for a transitional period. -- If you cc me or remove the list(s) completely I'll most likely ignore your message. see http://www.eyrie.org./~eagle/faqs/questions.html