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 unstable or code in CVS, otherwise, realize that our first > instincts are not always correct.
NO. NO. NO. I've already heard it and I won't accept it. The so-called stable version of tar has *serious known bugs*. If upstream will not accept the responsibility of periodically updating tar with bug fixes, they must assume that people will follow the so-called unstable versions. Maybe, just maybe, upstream's instincts are wrong on the matter of -I also. Maybe, just maybe, if we hadn't followed upstream into using -I rather than -y we wouldn't be having a problem. Maybe we should just yank out -I and wait for upstream to catch up. Is there any guarantee that if we switch to -j it won't change again? -- Mike Stone