James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> wrote: Let me try to first avoid to discuss things that are arguable...
> > Don should know that there is no POSIX violation. He did not prove his claim > > with a pointer to the POSIX standard, judge yourself whom to believe..... > > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xcu/tar.html > > It says nothing about (mis)interpreting an absolute path name as a > relative one, or about switching that behavior on or off. Correct, it does not forbid the behavor that has been chosen to make tar more safe. If you are looking for something that could be called incorrect, it would be archives that include absolute path names. > (I'd like to see star passed through the validation suite. Perhaps > the folks who manage those tests can arrange something.) I would be interested to see a result from such a test. Note that Sun's tar did not pass my tests for POSIX compatibility before November 2004. Then Sun did start to use my tests.... > In any event, regardless of what one thinks about POSIX, the behavior > of star is incompatible with the existing /usr/bin/tar. It's > incompatible because star made an implementation change (forcing > absolute paths to be relative) that historical tar did not have. You > can certainly argue that star's behavior is "better." You can't argue > that it's compatible. Sorry, but this is not an incompatible change. Is is a change that prevents problems and all up to date tar implementations behave this way. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
