On Wednesday 06 of January 2016 01:02:24 Stefanos Harhalakis wrote: > Aren't these two cases pretty similar?
Those are similar, yes. In both cases the input file is _not unreadable_ so tar should behave similarly with regards to --ignore-failed-read. Anyways, it would be fine to have rather a better option for it, something similar to "--warning", but the effect would be dont-switch-to-nonzero-status. Other than that; If the file have shrunk/grew, it _is_ serious issue from the consistency POV! And returning non-zero status is IMO really worth. I can imagine that in really *rare* situation you can expect that the archived file may be restored a safe way. And to me, --ignore-failed-read ignores way too much (orthogonal) situations. Pavel
