Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:29:19 +0200 (CEST) From: Svein Halvor Halvorsen <svein-freebsd-current@theloosingend.net> To: Roman Neuhauser <neuhauser@chello.cz> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: tar -l is now (intentionally) broken. Message-ID: <20040803112139.L17134@mirrorball.thelosingend.net> In-Reply-To: <20040803072859.GA944@isis.wad.cz> References: <410F28E1.8080105@freebsd.org> <20040803072859.GA944@isis.wad.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[Roman Neuhauser, 2004-08-03] > > $ 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 short, everyone wins on -o, everyone loses > > on -l. That seems fair. ;-) > > I believe "loses" is the keyword here. I don't see how this > would benefit anyone in the long term, sticking with either > side would be better (but please choose POSIX :). Theoretically, I'm with you, but if I'm going to be pragmatic, I have to say that if any one of the -l behaviours are to be the default, it should be the GNU one, despite it beeing non-POSIX. GNU tar has been in the base system forever now, and it's become the expected version. We should strive to be POSIX-compliant, but also try to be true to the history of things. Also, since it's possible to get undesired effect from using the wrong option, I say stick to the historical-compliant implementation, -or- give an error. Don't break compability just for the sake of beeing POSIX- compliant. It's BSD, not POSIX (og GNU for that matter -- or even SysV) Svein Halvor (A FreeBSD dilletant that's interferring with 'the big guys')
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040803112139.L17134>