Stephane Chazelas wrote, on 08 Dec 2022: > > IMO, pax -0 should make it to issue 8 though as it's largely > unusable without it.
That depends on what you want to use it for. Our intention is not to make pathnames with newlines equally as usable as those without. It is just to provide ways for applications to protect themselves from misbehaving if they are encountered. Although find -print0, read -d "", and xargs -0 aren't strictly necessary for that, their use is sufficiently popular that there is a valid case for standardising them. To protect uses of pax from pathnames with newlines you can do: LC_ALL=C find . -name $'*\n*' -prune -o -print | pax -w -d ... I suppose if there are such pathnames in an archive, having -0 would allow you to list them and feed the output to xargs -0 or read -d "", but since Issue 8 pax won't be able to extract files whose pathnames contain newlines (except by renaming them with -s or -i), that doesn't seem like a good enough reason to add -0. You can see that they exist by listing with "pax -v" and noting which lines have no mode, user, group, size, etc. (or just attempt an extraction and see which files pax fails to extract). -- Geoff Clare <[email protected]> The Open Group, Apex Plaza, Forbury Road, Reading, RG1 1AX, England
