Re: did tar(1) loose xz compression support in 11?

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Lowell Gilbert
<freebsd-current-local_at_be-well.ilk.org> wrote:
> "Chris H" <bsd-lists_at_bsdforge.com> writes:
>
>>> On 8/26/14 11:05 AM, Chris H wrote:
>>>> Greetings,
>>>> I'm currently testing 11. My build / install is from about 2 days ago.
>>>> I generally use xz compression, when creating archives. But when I
>>>> attempt the following:
>>>>
>>>> tar -cvJ --options xz:9 -f ./archive-name.tar.xz ./file
>>>>
>>>> it returns the following:
>>>>
>>>> tar: Undefined option: `xz:9'
>>>>
>>>> This has always worked in previous versions. Has the syntax changed,
>>>> and the man(1) pages just haven't caught up?
>>>
>>> I use:
>>> tar -cJ --options xz:compression-level=1
>>> .. on head. Are you using the right syntax?
>> Apparently not. Using your example works as expected.
>> RELENG_8, and RELENG_9 use short-hand;
>> tar -cvJ --options xz:9
>>
>> Why/when the change to long-hand? Seems a shame. Now I
>> get to modify all my scripts, and such. :P Altho I
>> don't suppose it'd be a big deal to back out (revert) the
>> changes made to tar(1). :)
>
> I can't find any changes that would make the syntax change.  At least,
> not in quite a long while.  Therefore, this change may not be
> intentional. However, I looked at the the manual page from 9.3, and its
> description of the features looks the same as on the latest HEAD, and
> *doesn't* look like leaving out a "key" (in this case,
> "compression-level") is ever compliant.
>
> You might try the latest (or older) libarchive from the ports, and
> compare its behaviour. Also, there are a number (amusingly many, in
> fact) of other ways of specifying these parameters that may be more
> convenient for you, so another look throught the tar(1) manual might
> save you a few minutes.
>
> Good luck.

    I've CCed kientzle_at_ for input.
Thanks!
-Garrett