Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:34:33 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> To: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-current-local@be-well.ilk.org> Cc: kientzle@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, Chris H <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> Subject: Re: did tar(1) loose xz compression support in 11? Message-ID: <CAGHfRMAB8FYNgQ5b44i-2ryjqcfuOfuW1J0p0aU5LLLYX8Si-Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <44sikjvw37.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> References: <cc981009f9a7332a7aad557c6a2ed216.authenticated@ultimatedns.net> <53FCD7B8.5060300@wemm.org> <dc60c6e467412ae8c8c4ba043039b270.authenticated@ultimatedns.net> <44sikjvw37.fsf@be-well.ilk.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Lowell Gilbert
<freebsd-current-local@be-well.ilk.org> wrote:
> "Chris H" <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> 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.
>
> Good luck.
I've CCed kientzle@ for input.
Thanks!
-Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGHfRMAB8FYNgQ5b44i-2ryjqcfuOfuW1J0p0aU5LLLYX8Si-Q>