Paul Eggert <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01/05/11 13:58, Michael Lawrence wrote: > > > If I understand you correctly, with -h there should be no links > > within the archive, i.e., there are two copies of foo in the > > archive. This is not how tar >= 1.24 behaves. > > I'm afraid it's not that simple. -h prevents *soft* links in the > archive, but it doesn't prevent *hard* links: > > $ touch foo > $ ln foo foo-hard > $ ln -s foo foo-soft > $ ls -l foo-hard foo-soft > -rw-r--r-- 2 eggert eggert 0 Jan 5 15:02 foo-hard > lrwxrwxrwx 1 eggert eggert 3 Jan 5 15:03 foo-soft -> foo > $ tar chf x.tar foo-hard foo-soft > $ tar tvf x.tar > -rw-r--r-- eggert/eggert 0 2011-01-05 15:02 foo-hard > hrw-r--r-- eggert/eggert 0 2011-01-05 15:02 foo-soft link to foo-hard > > This behavior is the same in tar 1.22 and 1.25 (I just checked). > > What's different in tar 1.24 and later, is that tar's behavior > does not change based on whether foo-hard's link count is > 2 or more. As Joerg Schilling notes, earlier versions of GNU tar > treat foo-soft differently if foo-hard's link count is 1. However, > this was a bug in GNU tar.
All tar implementations I am aware of behave different in this case depanding on whether the link count of foo is >= 2. I cannot see a "bug" for this reason. It seems that GNU tar now indeed differs from tar. Jörg -- 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
