From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 2 01:31:11 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 1320016A4CE for ; Mon, 2 Aug 2004 01:31:11 +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 E397243D5F for ; Mon, 2 Aug 2004 01:31:09 +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 i721V390093089; Sun, 1 Aug 2004 18:31:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <410D9957.5020308@freebsd.org> Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 18:31:03 -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: "David G. Lawrence" References: <40F963D8.6010201@freebsd.org> <200407291159.i6TBxKj01347@Mail.NOSPAM.DynDNS.dK> <4109BA1B.7090609@freebsd.org> <20040730080026.GA46093@nexus.dglawrence.com> <410A78B1.4030608@kientzle.com> <20040801221508.GF75481@nexus.dglawrence.com> <410D894D.7000209@freebsd.org> <20040802010910.GA63402@nexus.dglawrence.com> In-Reply-To: <20040802010910.GA63402@nexus.dglawrence.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tar -l versus gtar -l 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: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 01:31:11 -0000 David G. Lawrence wrote: > > Well...the SUSv2 specification for tar may not have been the best standard > to adhere to. The change of behavior for the 'l' option on create is going > to seriously bite a lot of people because it majorly affects what is > archived. I'm reluctant to contradict the one serious attempt to standardize tar simply because gtar ignored that effort. I would rather just disable the -l option entirely; that way, people would get an error message instead of having the tar program behave unexpectedly. Would you be happier with this behavior? $ tar -cl /foo Error: -l is ambiguous If you want GNU tar -l, use --one-file-system instead. If you want POSIX tar -l, use --link-warn instead. Tim