on Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:33:15 EDT Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wednesday 20 September 2006 05:56, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> > >> But be careful, at least the tar 1.15.91-2 from Debian is broken: it > >> ignores the --one-file-system option when doing incrementals, causing > >> exorbitant backup sizes for any level > 0. I don't know about the > >> upstream version, but since this bug has been reported almost 2 months > >> ago, I'm afraid that one is broken, too. > > > >Apparently the problem is more subtle. Thanks to the Debian bug tracking > >system, I noticed this: > > > >http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=384508 > >tar: -l option changed meaning, without any warning! > > > >Gr{oetje,eeting}s, > > > > Geert > > > Good Grief Charley Brown! > > Tar is supposed to be a stable, mature utility is it not? I mean its what, > 30 years old, existing in the various *nix's long before gnu took over? > Whyinhell can't the folks over at gnu.org find something else to screw > with besides tar? It doesn't _need_ to be on their WPA or CCC lists as a > makework project when there's nothing else to do around the office. >
On my Suse 10.0 system: (2): cs> tar --version tar (GNU tar) 1.15.1 (0): cs> tar -l dum dum tar: Semantics of -l option will change in the future releases. tar: Please use --one-file-system option instead. So, at least there were warnings (not really an excuse I think) Regards, Charles
