Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:10:00 -0700 From: Tim Kientzle <tim@kientzle.com> To: Chris H <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> Cc: freebsd hackers <hackers@freebsd.org>, freebsd current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: did tar(1) loose xz compression support in 11? Message-ID: <134A4303-3421-4A7B-9EB6-74D58B939217@kientzle.com> In-Reply-To: <cc981009f9a7332a7aad557c6a2ed216.authenticated@ultimatedns.net> References: <cc981009f9a7332a7aad557c6a2ed216.authenticated@ultimatedns.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Aug 26, 2014, at 11:05 AM, Chris H <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> 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: >=20 > tar -cvJ --options xz:9 -f ./archive-name.tar.xz ./file >=20 > it returns the following: >=20 > tar: Undefined option: `xz:9' >=20 > This has always worked in previous versions. Has the syntax changed, > and the man(1) pages just haven't caught up? I can=92t see any evidence in libarchive=92s source that this ever = worked. However, there was some work done recently to improve error reporting = from the options processor. It=92s quite possible that =97options xz:9 = used to just be ignored and now it=92s reporting an error. Tim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?134A4303-3421-4A7B-9EB6-74D58B939217>