Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 19:27:53 +1000 From: Johny Mattsson <lonewolf-freebsd@earthmagic.org> To: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: tar -l is now (intentionally) broken. Message-ID: <410F5A99.3000505@earthmagic.org> In-Reply-To: <410F28E1.8080105@freebsd.org> References: <410F28E1.8080105@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. 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? Cheers, /Johny -- Johny Mattsson - Making IT work ,-. ,-. ,-. There is no truth. http://www.earthmagic.org _.' `-' `-' There is only perception.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?410F5A99.3000505>