On 24/09/13 02:49 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Connor Behan <connor.be...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 23/09/13 02:16 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: >>> Pulkit Bhuwalka <pulkit.bosc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> This is to report an issue that I have run into while using tar. >>>> >>>> *Issue* - tar destroys file when arguments are passed in wrong order >>>> leading to loss of data. >>>> >>>> *Correct tar order* - tar -cvzf "archive_file_name" "file_to_be_archived" >>>> >>>> *Order actually passed* - tar - cvzf "file_to_be_archived" >>>> "archive_file_name" >>>> >>>> tar ignores the fact that the "file_to_be_archived" exists and simply >>>> overwrites it, and then crashes out complaining that "archive_file_name" >>>> doesn't exist. >>> ....A problem that is known since before GNU tar exists... >>> >>> This is typical "tar" behavior and this is why "star" did never allow this >>> in >>> case it was called as "star". When keeping compatibility with the SUSv2 >>> standard, >>> I see no easy way to work around the problem. >>> >>> Jörg >>> >> What about the patch I just sent? It would make it slightly harder to >> trigger this problem. The relevant part of the SUSv2 standard is the >> line that says archives are written from the beginning instead of after >> the last file, right? I think the patch still follows that by >> overwriting existing archives as long as it can dump a file that exists. > Which patch? http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-tar/2013-09/msg00038.html
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
