Re: HEADS UP: tar -l is now (intentionally) broken.

At 7:27 PM +1000 8/3/04, Johny Mattsson wrote:
>Tim Kientzle wrote:
>>Since POSIX and GNU violently disagree about the
>>meaning of "tar -l", and there seem to be strong
>>adherents to both interpretations, I'm preparing to
>>commit a patch that breaks "tar -l" for everyone:
>>
>>$ 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.
>
>Apologies if this is close to a bike-shed, but how about
>making the above message a transitional message, and
>changing it to:
>
>$ 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 future releases, POSIX behavior will be assumed, so
>     please adjust scripts and mentality as needed before then.

Note that this is kind of pointless.  What `-l' will do in
*future* releases will not help the user if they can not use
it right now.  I.e., the current behavior is going to force
script-writers to use either --one-file-system or --check-links
right now, or their script will not work at all.  They cannot
"adjust" their scripts to use -j at some unspecified point in
the future, if they can't use the option right now.

(btw, I do think this change is the right change to make,
given all the details of the `-l' option).

-- 
Garance Alistair Drosehn            =   gad_at_gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer           or  gad_at_freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute    or  drosih_at_rpi.edu