>>>>> " " == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 02:05:27AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 04:25:43AM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann >> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 03:28:46AM +0100, Goswin >> Brederlow wrote: > > "tar -xIvvf file.tar.bz2" has been in use >> under linux for over a year > > by pretty much everybody. Even >> if the author never released it as > > stable, all linux >> distributions did it. I think that should count > > something. >> > > It tells a lot about the people making the distributions at >> least. >> >> Before making such snide comments, take a look at the >> changelog.Debian entries relating to the switch from 1.13 to >> 1.13.x. > I see. Well, I don't think that Bdale did something wrong with > including 1.13.x. But I find the reactions to the flag change > shown here by some people quite inappropriate. When using > unreleased software, people have to expect such changes, > especially for non-standard extensions. It happens all the > time. On anything apart from Debian I wouldn't say a word about it. BUT on Debian tar -I is a standard and its stable. So I start screaming. Since the Debian maintainer made -I stable with a unstable upstream source, its his responsibility to watch it. Its the authors fault to have not resolved the problem for so long and suddenly resolve it in such a disasterous way, but also the Debian maintainers fault not to warn us and ease our transition. Fault might be a to strong word, I just mean that there should be a new upload asap that eigther reverts the -I change or tells the user about it. Having -I silently just do something else is not an option in my eyes. MfG Goswin