>>>>> " " == 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 changes the behaviour of tar and I
>> would consider that a > critical bug, since backup software
>> does break horribly with the new > semantic.
>>
>> Yes, I think that this should definetely be changed back. The
>> first time I encountered this problem, I thought that the
>> tar.bz2 archive was broken from the error message tar
>> reported. (Not a valid tar archive or so.) This change is
>> confusing and unreasonable IMHO.
> 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 nonstandard commands when
> building scripts anyway :)
The problem is that -I works although it should completly break
everything. The only difference is that the tar file won't be
compressed anymore.
No warning, no error and noone reads changelogs unless something
breaks. (well, most people don't).
"mkdir bla"
"tar -cIvvf bla.tar.bz2 bla" should give:
"bla.tar.bz2: No such file" Since -I reads the files to be included
from a file.
"bla: Failed to open file, bla is a directory" Since tar should try
to create a tra file named bla, which is a directoy.
or
"tar: cowerdly refusing to create empty archive" Since there
are no file given as parameters and none read from
bla.tar.bz2.
So where are the errors?
MfG
Goswin
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.
