> On Aug 26, 2014, at 11:05 AM, Chris H <bsd-li...@bsdforge.com> wrote:
>> I'm currently testing 11. My build / install is from about 2 days ago.
>> I generally use xz compression, when creating archives. But when I
>> attempt the following:
>> tar -cvJ --options xz:9 -f ./archive-name.tar.xz ./file
>> it returns the following:
>> tar: Undefined option: `xz:9'
>> This has always worked in previous versions. Has the syntax changed,
>> and the man(1) pages just haven't caught up?
> I can’t see any evidence in libarchive’s source that this ever worked.
> However, there was some work done recently to improve error reporting from
> the options
> processor. It’s quite possible that —options xz:9 used to just be ignored
> and now it’s
> reporting an error.
On a hunch. I performed a similar test.
I added STAGE to the following port. So I'll test here.
# tar -cvJ --options xz:9 -f posadis-xz9.tar.xz ./posadis/
# tar -cvJ --options xz:1 -f posadis-xz1.tar.xz ./posadis/
unlike the previous examples, and arguments. I used the v switch.
Presuming that would provide feedback on any anomalous usage.
However. The following proves otherwise:
# ls -la
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 2380 Aug 27 06:47 posadis-xz1.tar.xz
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 2380 Aug 27 06:47 posadis-xz9.tar.xz
(performed on a RELENG_9 box)
As one can see, nothing (compression level(s)) were UNchanged.
So the verdict is in; the _recent_ changes provide the needed
feedback where anomalous usage is concerned.
Short version; tar now works correctly -- it's fixed. :)
Humble opinion; the man(1) pages could be somewhat more concise.
Humble request; would it be possible to make [bsd]tar(1) honor
the short-hand version of options?
Thank you, Tim, and everyone else, for all your thoughtful replies.
> email@example.com mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"