Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 15:27:53 +1000 From: David Dawes <dawes@rf900.physics.usyd.edu.au> To: "Pedro F. Giffuni" <pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GNU is not tar Message-ID: <19970513152753.59938@rf900.physics.usyd.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <33781510.52B9@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co>; from Pedro F. Giffuni on Tue, May 13, 1997 at 12:15:28AM -0700 References: <Pine.NEB.3.94.970512180204.6097B-100000@misery.sdf.com> <3377F32D.10DB@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> <19970513140357.63713@rf900.physics.usyd.edu.au> <33781510.52B9@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, May 13, 1997 at 12:15:28AM -0700, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
>David Dawes wrote:
>>
>> So, it is behaving as documented, and the FreeBSD man page isn't accurate:
>>
>You are right. I never read the complete tar manpage, but only the
>example (which was wrong). The "-" is optional as Chuck Robey noted.
The man page is wrong in stating that the "-" is optional, because the
behaviour is slightly different depending on whether the "-" is used or
not. The example in the man page doesn't use the "-", and does work:
tar cfb /dev/rst0 20 bert ernie
>The real problem, anyway, is that pax should be used instead of "tar"
>when building packages or preparing the distribution, to be more
>standard comformant. I think the ports tree uses pax anyway.
I've seen problems with pax -- both the original version which I
tried some years ago, and the version that comes with Digital Unix
(and to which tar and cpio are linked). I've been avoiding it ever
since, and haven't tried the version included with FreeBSD.
David
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970513152753.59938>