From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 3 05:55:45 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 DF82D16A4CE; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 05:55:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from kientzle.com (h-66-166-149-50.snvacaid.covad.net [66.166.149.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ED2343D5C; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 05:55:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Received: from freebsd.org (p54.kientzle.com [66.166.149.54]) by kientzle.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i735tj90099409; Mon, 2 Aug 2004 22:55:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <410F28E1.8080105@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 22:55:45 -0700 From: Tim Kientzle User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20031006 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: 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 05:55:46 -0000 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. The message pretty much says it all. Setting POSIXLY_CORRECT in the environment will make -l a synonym for --check-links. (Note that this is different than GNU tar's behavior in the presence of POSIXLY_CORRECT.) I will consider suggestions for a corresponding environment variable for GNU behavior (GNULY_CORRECT?). I've also adopted an idea from GNU tar 1.14, which treats -o in the POSIX manner on extract, in the GNU manner on create. I don't believe the change to -l will break more than a couple of ports. Prior to this change, ports that specified -l would get the POSIX behavior even though they may have thought they were requesting the GNU behavior. This change will force you to unambiguously specify the particular behavior you desire. In short, everyone wins on -o, everyone loses on -l. That seems fair. ;-) Tim Kientzle