On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 04:24:32AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> (In defense of GNU fileutils, I don't think I've seen any two Unix
> versions of df with compatible output either. The HP-UX 11 output is
> truly, ahem, interesting.)
HPUX has a df and a bdf, as far as i remeber. and they ship a G
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 06:23:44PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> from the secret journal of Sam Couter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > No it's not. It does one thing (Advanced Package Management), and does it
> > fairly well. Just because the thing it does is a complex task doesn't mean
> > it's got creepin
[cas]
> on every non-linux machine i have to use, the first thing i do is
> download and compile all the GNU tools including tar. i then change
> the PATH setting to include /usr/local/bin/gnu at the start.
I used to do that, but then I got burned by 'df'. Debugging that one
involved wading thr
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:28:15AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Frankly, I don't see why gnu tar needs to be compatible with
> OS-specific versions because most of those are feature-poor anyway.
the one reason for gnu tar to do that is so that it can be a drop-in
replacement for those crappy ver
from the secret journal of Sam Couter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> No it's not. It does one thing (Advanced Package Management), and does it
> fairly well. Just because the thing it does is a complex task doesn't mean
> it's got creeping featuritis. If it tried to do more than just package
> management,
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So, what's your point exactly?
>
> I hope you never use apt-get, as that would certainly be
> something beyond bare bones.
No it's not. It does one thing (Advanced Package Management), and does it
fairly well. Just because the thing it does is a comp
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 09:09:06PM +0100, Ingo Saitz wrote:
> option? Is -j fixed for the next stable tar version or will it
> probably change to something different again? If yes, we should
> not support -j in potato, as suggested above, of course.
It's already changed several times before. I wou
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 09:09:06PM +0100, Ingo Saitz wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 02:26:32PM +0100, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
> > tar in potato uses -I for bzip2. So far, tar -I won't be bzip2 in
> > woody, the next stable.
>
> I wonder how other linux distributions will handle this. Would it
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 02:26:32PM +0100, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
> tar in potato uses -I for bzip2. So far, tar -I won't be bzip2 in
> woody, the next stable.
I wonder how other linux distributions will handle this. Would it
be possible for potato, to support -j as well to ease the
transition t
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 02:06:52PM +1100, Sam Couter wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > If we're expected to avoid any advanced features, why do the authors bother
> > to implement them?
>
> http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/creeping-featuritis.html
So, what's
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If we're expected to avoid any advanced features, why do the authors bother
> to implement them?
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/creeping-featuritis.html
--
Sam Couter | Internet Engineer | http://www.topic.com.au/
[EMAIL
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 08:32:33AM +1100, Sam Couter wrote:
> My point is that the -I option *doesn't* mean "uncompress this file using
> bzip2" for anything other than GNU tar. Now that it doesn't mean that for
> GNU tar either, people are complaining. I think they probably shouldn't have
> been u
> From: Goswin Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 07 Jan 2001 23:00:59 +0100
> % tar -cIvvf bla.tar.bz2 bla
> tar: bla: Cannot stat: No such file or directory
That is indeed a bug. Thanks for reporting it. I'll fix it as follows:
@@ -439,5 +434,5 @@ or a device. *This* `tar' defaults to
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 08:32:33AM +1100, Sam Couter wrote:
> My point is that the -I option *doesn't* mean "uncompress this file using
> bzip2" for anything other than GNU tar. Now that it doesn't mean that for
> GNU tar either, people are complaining. I think they probably shouldn't have
> been u
* Sam Couter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not saying it *should* change the behaviour of the -I option.
> I'm saying that if it does, it does. I just don't want to hear
> complaints about a non-standard option suddenly behaving
> differently.
The multiple-OS users do not benefit from this ch
Martin Bialasinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So, as you can not assume any particular flag for bzip2 compression
> anyway, why should GNU tar change its bzip2 option to the one used by
> the solaris tar?
I'm not saying it *should* change the behaviour of the -I option.
I'm saying that if it
> " " == Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 12:07:14 -0500 From: Michael Stone
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> I certainly hope that the debian version at least prevents
>> serious silent breakage by either reverting the change to -I
>> and printing
* Sam Couter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Most of the options in gtar are non-standard. Are you saying that
>> users should rely on none of them?
> Pretty much. It's always useful to know exactly which options you're
> using are not going to work on man
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:12:59AM +1100, Sam Couter wrote:
>> Goswin Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote: > Just as linux-centric as the other way is
>> solaris-centric.
>>
>> Not true. There's the way GNU tar works, then there's the way
>> every other tar on the
Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Changing gnu tar to be compatible with one of many diverse proprietary
> implementations, for only one of several incompatible flags, is a
> rationalization rather than a justification.
I agree, but it's at least as good (maybe better) a reason as the
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Could you please name the other unices that behave identically
> to solaris tar wrt the -I option? And which other unices even have
> the -I option in tar?
My point is that the -I option *doesn't* mean "uncompress this file using
bzip2" for
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 07:21:29PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think the -I ==> -j change is not that bad.
> The only package I found using -I was devscripts' /usr/bin/uupdate.
The problem is not that it breaks our scripts -- it's
different for every end user of tar as well!
So if I'm use
> - -j, --bzip2filter the archive through bzip2\n\
> + -I, -j --bzip2 filter the archive through bzip2\n\
If it's a deprecated option, don't document it in the online help. A note
in a COMPATIBILITY section in the manpage is more appropriate.
> Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 12:07:14 -0500
> From: Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I certainly hope that the debian version at least prevents serious
> silent breakage by either reverting the change to -I and printing a
> message that the option is deprecated or removing the -I flag
> entirely.
W
Hello,
I think the -I ==> -j change is not that bad.
The only package I found using -I was devscripts' /usr/bin/uupdate.
I submitted this patch:
--- uupdate.origSun Jan 7 18:40:59 2001
+++ uupdate Sun Jan 7 18:43:13 2001
@@ -294,7 +294,7 @@
X="${ARCHIVE##*/}"
case "$X" in
> Michael Stone writes:
(snip flamage)
ms> I don't know whether any amount of discussion will convince
ms> the upstream tar maintainers to undo this, but I certainly
ms> hope that the debian version at least prevents serious silent
ms> breakage by either reverting the change to
>>"Sam" == Sam Couter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Sam> Not true. There's the way GNU tar works, then there's the way every other
Sam> tar on the planet works (at least with respect to the -I option). GNU tar
is
Sam> (used to be) the odd one out. Now you're saying that not behaving like the
Sa
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:12:59AM +1100, Sam Couter wrote:
> Goswin Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Just as linux-centric as the other way is solaris-centric.
>
> Not true. There's the way GNU tar works, then there's the way every other
> tar on the planet works (at least with respect to
> " " == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 02:05:27AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 04:25:43AM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann
>> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 03:28:46AM +0100, Goswin
>> Brederlow wrote: > > "tar -xIvvf
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 02:05:27AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 04:25:43AM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 03:28:46AM +0100, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> > > "tar -xIvvf file.tar.bz2" has been in use under linux for over a year
> > > by pretty much e
#include
Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote on Sat Jan 06, 2001 um 05:35:55PM:
> Or alias -I to -j, but print a warning to stderr:
>
> tar: warning: Using the -I option for bzip compression is an obsolete
> functionality and it will removed in future versions of tar,
>
> Then, in the woody+1 we make -I
* Sam Couter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm sure this has been said before, but:
Sure, but it doesn't apply here.
> Don't run unstable if you don't like stuff changing or breaking.
tar in potato uses -I for bzip2. So far, tar -I won't be bzip2 in
woody, the next stable.
So anyone using just
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:12:59AM +1100, Sam Couter wrote:
> Don't run unstable if you don't like stuff changing or breaking.
> Unstable breaks stuff from time to time. It changes stuff more often than
> that.
This is a bit different, Sam. The I switch works in tar in potato.
Your comment would a
Goswin Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just as linux-centric as the other way is solaris-centric.
Not true. There's the way GNU tar works, then there's the way every other
tar on the planet works (at least with respect to the -I option). GNU tar is
(used to be) the odd one out. Now you're s
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 04:25:43AM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 03:28:46AM +0100, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> > "tar -xIvvf file.tar.bz2" has been in use under linux for over a year
> > by pretty much everybody. Even if the author never released it as
> > stable, all linux
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 03:28:46AM +0100, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> "tar -xIvvf file.tar.bz2" has been in use under linux for over a year
> by pretty much everybody. Even if the author never released it as
> stable, all linux distributions did it. I think that should count
> something.
It tells a
> " " == Sam Couter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> PS: Why not change the Solaris version to be compatible with
>> the widely used linux version? I'm sure there are more people
>> and tools out there for linux using -I then
Goswin Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PS: Why not change the Solaris version to be compatible with the widely used
> linux version? I'm sure there are more people and tools out there for linux
> using -I then there are for solaris.
This is an incredibly Linux-centric point of view. You s
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 02:53:06PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> "Scott Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Of course the -I option to tar was completely non-standard. The
> >changelog explains why it changed, to be consistant with Solaris tar.
>
> I don't see the reasoning in the changelog, but
> > Of course the -I option to tar was completely non-standard. The changelog
> > explains why it changed, to be consistant with Solaris tar. I'd prefer
> > portability and consistancy any day, it shouldn't take that long to change
> > any custom scripts you have. I always use long options for n
Since solaris compat is now a release goal for tar, should we also
expect dramatic changes in the behavior of the following options?
(Some of these are actually supported on more platforms than just
solaris; gtar is the only oddball.)
F
i
k
l
o
P
--
Mike Stone
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 11:43:10AM -0500, Neal H Walfield wrote:
> I think that your argument is equivalent to someone complaining that
> unstable is broken. Of course it is, nothing has been finalized and it
> is, by definition, unstable. If you want stability, use the released
> version, not un
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 11:20:58AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 01:17:40AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> > One point the maintainer has made on the gnu mailing lists in response
> > to complaints about this change is that there has actually been no
> > *released* version of g
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 01:17:40AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> One point the maintainer has made on the gnu mailing lists in response
> to complaints about this change is that there has actually been no
> *released* version of gnu tar that uses -I for bzip (I don't know
> whether it's true or not).
Goswin Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> PS: Why not change the Solaris version to be compatible with the
> widely used linux version? I'm sure there are more people and tools
> out there for linux using -I then there are for solaris.
One point the maintainer has made on the gnu mailing list
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 07:42:30AM -0500, Scott Ellis wrote:
> Of course the -I option to tar was completely non-standard. The changelog
> explains why it changed, to be consistant with Solaris tar. I'd prefer
> portability and consistancy any day, it shouldn't take that long to change
> any cust
"Scott Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Of course the -I option to tar was completely non-standard. The
>changelog explains why it changed, to be consistant with Solaris tar.
I don't see the reasoning in the changelog, but I may just have missed
it.
>I'd prefer portability and consistancy any
> " " == Scott Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Goswin Brederlow wrote: > the Author of tar changed the --bzip
>> option again. This time its even > worse than the last time,
>> since -I is still a valid option but with a > totally different
>> meaning. > > This totally ch
Scott Ellis wrote:
> Of course the -I option to tar was completely non-standard. The changelog
> explains why it changed, to be consistant with Solaris tar. I'd prefer
> portability and consistancy any day, it shouldn't take that long to change
> any custom scripts you have. I always use long op
> Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> > the Author of tar changed the --bzip option again. This time its even
> > worse than the last time, since -I is still a valid option but with a
> > totally different meaning.
> >
> > This totally changes the behaviour of tar and I would consider that a
> > critical bug
Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> the Author of tar changed the --bzip option again. This time its even
> worse than the last time, since -I is still a valid option but with a
> totally different meaning.
>
> This totally changes the behaviour of tar and I would consider that a
> critical bug, since backu
Hi,
the Author of tar changed the --bzip option again. This time its even
worse than the last time, since -I is still a valid option but with a
totally different meaning.
This totally changes the behaviour of tar and I would consider that a
critical bug, since backup software does break horribly
52 matches
Mail list logo
