On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 02:56:33AM -0700, Jakub Narebski wrote: >Andreas Schwab <[email protected]> writes: >> Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <[email protected]> writes: >>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 02:26:53PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>>>Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <[email protected]> writes: >>>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:25:24PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:15:43PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> GNU tar-1.22 handles 'o' as no-same-owner only on extract, >>>>>>> on create, 'o' would be --old-archive. > >>>>>> $(INSTALL) -d -m 755 '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(template_instdir_SQ)' >>>>>> (cd blt && $(TAR) cf - .) | \ >>>>>> - (cd '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(template_instdir_SQ)' && umask 022 && >>>>>> $(TAR) xfo -) >>>>>> + (cd '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(template_instdir_SQ)' && umask 022 && >>>>>> $(TAR) x --no-numeric-owner -f -) >>>>> >>>>> argh, sorry! --no-same-owner of course. >>>> >>>> Either way, your change would break non-GNU tar implementations that are >>>> properly POSIX.1, isn't it? >>> >>> I suppose xf - -o would work? >> >> Isn't that the same as 'xfo -'? >> >> (tar isn't specified by POSIX, btw.) > >I don't quite understand why 'o' has to be spelled using long name >--no-same-owner, instead of just correcting the ordering of "old style"
It doesn't have to be, right. >short options to have 'f' last, i.e. > > $(TAR) xof - > >and not (current) > > $(TAR) xfo - any of "xf - -o" or "xof -" would work for me. _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
