Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 00:02:38 -0700 From: "David G. Lawrence" <dg@dglawrence.com> To: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tar -l versus gtar -l Message-ID: <20040802070238.GA66505@nexus.dglawrence.com> In-Reply-To: <410D9957.5020308@freebsd.org> 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> <410D9957.5020308@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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. Yes. That way at least people won't accidently destroy a filesystem (like I did) when they're trying to use tar to copy stuff. -DG David G. Lawrence President Download Technologies, Inc. - http://www.downloadtech.com - (866) 399 8500 TeraSolutions, Inc. - http://www.terasolutions.com - (888) 346 7175 The FreeBSD Project - http://www.freebsd.org Pave the road of life with opportunities.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040802070238.GA66505>