On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Joerg Schilling < [email protected]> wrote:
> Michael Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Issuing these commands with 1.23: > > > > > > > > $ touch foo > > > > $ tar czfh foo.tar.gz foo bar > > > > $ tar tzvf foo.tar.gz > > > > -rw-r--r-- larman/larman 0 2011-01-04 15:06 foo > > > > -rw-r--r-- larman/larman 0 2011-01-04 15:06 bar > > > > > > > > That is as expected > > > > > > No doubt you meant that foo should be a symbolic link to tar? > > > (Your example doesn't say.) > > > > > > But in that case, I don't see why you'd expect the behavior > > > described above. If symlinks are being followed, 'tar' should > > > behave the same with 'ln foo bar' as it does with 'ln -s foo bar', > > > which is like this: > > > > > > $ touch foo > > > $ ln foo bar > > > $ tar czfh foo.tar.gz foo bar > > > $ tar tzvf foo.tar.gz > > > -rw-r--r-- eggert/eggert 0 2011-01-05 09:43 foo > > > hrw-r--r-- eggert/eggert 0 2011-01-05 09:43 bar link to foo > > > > > > This behavior is the same for both 1.22 and 1.25 (I just checked). > > > tar 1.22 mishandles it if "ln -s" is used, but 1.25 gets it right. > > > > > > > > Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I was under the impression that the -h option > > dereferences symlinks, so that they become regular files inside the > archive. > > Is this not how it is supposed to work? > > What is bar in the first case? > > Sorry, somehow this: $ ln -s foo bar Got lost in the cut and paste. Jörg > > -- > > EMail:[email protected]<email%[email protected]>(home) > Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin > [email protected] (uni) > [email protected] (work) Blog: > http://schily.blogspot.com/ > URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily >
