On Sunday 17 February 2008 19:38, Aizer Danny-BDA023 wrote: > Hi, > > It seems that busybox's tar applet doesn't support the -p option which > is standard for (e.g.) GNU tar.
What do you mean by "doesn't support"? It errors out on it? It accepts it but doesn't honor? Since you didn't send this info, I tried to check myself. sh-3.2# /usr/bin/tar --version tar (GNU tar) 1.15.1 sh-3.2# ./tar --help BusyBox v1.10.0.svn (2008-02-17 00:31:14 CET) multi-call binary ... Both seem to create files with exact mode from tarfile, _even without -p option_: sh-3.2# umask 077 sh-3.2# ./tar xjf *.tar.bz2 sh-3.2# ls -l drwxr-xr-x 30 root root 1152 Feb 18 00:46 busybox-1.9.1 ^^^^^^^^^^ -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1795971 Feb 12 17:14 busybox-1.9.1.tar.bz2 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 783672 Feb 18 00:44 tar sh-3.2# rm -rf busybox-1.9.1 sh-3.2# /usr/bin/tar xjf *.tar.bz2 sh-3.2# ls -l drwxr-xr-x 30 root root 1152 Feb 12 17:14 busybox-1.9.1 ^^^^^^^^^^ -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1795971 Feb 12 17:14 busybox-1.9.1.tar.bz2 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 783672 Feb 18 00:44 tar (I also looked inside those dirs: files have -rw-r--r-- mode too, so umask 077 is not affecting files either). > Is there a way to achieve the same > functionality using the busybox tar, or can this option be supported by > busybox tar? Otherwise it seems that tar extracts files and creates them > using the current user's umask, which sometimes means that files have > the wrong permissions after extraction. Testcase? -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
