In a recent note, Thomas Dickey said: > Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:11:18 -0500 (EST) > > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Worse yet, I do some installs on a system on which, because of a > > spoor-marking contest between the admins of the server and the admins > > of the client, I can "give away" files with "chown", then not chown > > them back, delete them, not modify them subsequently. > > I haven't seen one of those for a while. Does it have 'id' (returning a > number), or are we stuck? > Yes, no. But I consider that installation administratively broken, dysfunctional, and certainly won't hold you accountable for accommodating it. And I haven't had the problem since I started using "pax" to unpack xterm. Pax has options to control restoring owner and group. I believe the default is, "don't restore".
> > Of course, the command syntax for "pax" is significantly different from > > that of "tar". > > Yes (I'm finding this - hadn't looked at pax for a long time, but > realizing that it is standard, have to include it). > > For lynx we only need the equivalents for > tar xf - > tar cf - > Pax has a copy mode; it can do both those in one operation, if that's what's required. -- gil -- StorageTek INFORMATION made POWERFUL ; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
