From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 3 17:58:00 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 E797B16A4CE; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 17:58:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp2.server.rpi.edu (smtp2.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95BFD43D2F; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 17:58:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp2.server.rpi.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i73Hvuvn013322; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 13:57:58 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <410F5A99.3000505@earthmagic.org> References: <410F28E1.8080105@freebsd.org> <410F5A99.3000505@earthmagic.org> Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 13:57:55 -0400 To: Johny Mattsson , Tim Kientzle From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) 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 17:58:01 -0000 At 7:27 PM +1000 8/3/04, Johny Mattsson wrote: >Tim Kientzle wrote: >>Since POSIX and GNU violently disagree about the >>meaning of "tar -l", and there seem to be strong >>adherents to both interpretations, I'm preparing to >>commit a patch that breaks "tar -l" for everyone: >> >>$ tar -cl foo >> Error: -l has different behaviors in different tars. >> For the GNU behavior, use --one-file-system instead. >> For the POSIX behavior, use --check-links instead. > >Apologies if this is close to a bike-shed, but how about >making the above message a transitional message, and >changing it to: > >$ tar -cl foo > Error: -l has different behaviors in different tars. > For the GNU behavior, use --one-file-system instead. > For the POSIX behavior, use --check-links instead. > In future releases, POSIX behavior will be assumed, so > please adjust scripts and mentality as needed before then. Note that this is kind of pointless. What `-l' will do in *future* releases will not help the user if they can not use it right now. I.e., the current behavior is going to force script-writers to use either --one-file-system or --check-links right now, or their script will not work at all. They cannot "adjust" their scripts to use -j at some unspecified point in the future, if they can't use the option right now. (btw, I do think this change is the right change to make, given all the details of the `-l' option). -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu