Re: did tar(1) loose xz compression support in 11?
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014, Daniel Eischen wrote: On Tue, 26 Aug 2014, Tim Kientzle wrote: On Aug 26, 2014, at 11:05 AM, Chris H bsd-li...@bsdforge.com wrote: Greetings, I'm currently testing 11. My build / install is from about 2 days ago. I generally use xz compression, when creating archives. But when I attempt the following: tar -cvJ --options xz:9 -f ./archive-name.tar.xz ./file it returns the following: tar: Undefined option: `xz:9' This has always worked in previous versions. Has the syntax changed, and the man(1) pages just haven't caught up? I can?t see any evidence in libarchive?s source that this ever worked. The man page is a little confusing. Here it says: --options options Select optional behaviors for particular modules. The argument is a text string containing comma-separated keywords and values. These are passed to the modules that handle particular formats to control how those formats will behave. Each option has one of the following forms: key=value The key will be set to the specified value in every module that supports it. Modules that do not support this key will ignore it. Then below, after the last option, it says: ... zip:compression=type Use type as compression method. Supported values are store (uncompressed) and deflate (gzip algorithm). If a provided option is not supported by any module, that is a fatal error. The first states that it is ignored, the latter states that it is a fatal error. The meaning of any module is subtle, at least for my feeble brain ;-) It suggests that options are passed to all modules, and each module is free to ignore options it does not understand. But at least one module must understand the option, or a fatal error is reported. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: did tar(1) loose xz compression support in 11?
On Aug 26, 2014, at 11:05 AM, Chris H bsd-li...@bsdforge.com wrote: Greetings, I'm currently testing 11. My build / install is from about 2 days ago. I generally use xz compression, when creating archives. But when I attempt the following: tar -cvJ --options xz:9 -f ./archive-name.tar.xz ./file it returns the following: tar: Undefined option: `xz:9' This has always worked in previous versions. Has the syntax changed, and the man(1) pages just haven't caught up? I can’t see any evidence in libarchive’s source that this ever worked. However, there was some work done recently to improve error reporting from the options processor. It’s quite possible that —options xz:9 used to just be ignored and now it’s reporting an error. Tim On a hunch. I performed a similar test. I added STAGE to the following port. So I'll test here. # tar -cvJ --options xz:9 -f posadis-xz9.tar.xz ./posadis/ a ./posadis a ./posadis/files a ./posadis/pkg-plist a ./posadis/Makefile a ./posadis/distinfo a ./posadis/pkg-descr a ./posadis/files/patch-Makefile.in a ./posadis/files/patch-configure.in # tar -cvJ --options xz:1 -f posadis-xz1.tar.xz ./posadis/ a ./posadis a ./posadis/files a ./posadis/pkg-plist a ./posadis/Makefile a ./posadis/distinfo a ./posadis/pkg-descr a ./posadis/files/patch-Makefile.in a ./posadis/files/patch-configure.in unlike the previous examples, and arguments. I used the v switch. Presuming that would provide feedback on any anomalous usage. However. The following proves otherwise: # ls -la -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 2380 Aug 27 06:47 posadis-xz1.tar.xz -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 2380 Aug 27 06:47 posadis-xz9.tar.xz (performed on a RELENG_9 box) As one can see, nothing (compression level(s)) were UNchanged. So the verdict is in; the _recent_ changes provide the needed feedback where anomalous usage is concerned. Short version; tar now works correctly -- it's fixed. :) Humble opinion; the man(1) pages could be somewhat more concise. Humble request; would it be possible to make [bsd]tar(1) honor the short-hand version of options? Thank you, Tim, and everyone else, for all your thoughtful replies. --Chris ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: r269471 make unusable VT console
Hi, I just update my box. I confirm too that r270322 fixed the problem. Thanks for fix it, -- Carlos Jacobo Puga Medina c...@fbsd.es ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: did tar(1) loose xz compression support in 11?
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014, Warren Block wrote: On Tue, 26 Aug 2014, Daniel Eischen wrote: The man page is a little confusing. Here it says: --options options Select optional behaviors for particular modules. The argument is a text string containing comma-separated keywords and values. These are passed to the modules that handle particular formats to control how those formats will behave. Each option has one of the following forms: key=value The key will be set to the specified value in every module that supports it. Modules that do not support this key will ignore it. Then below, after the last option, it says: ... zip:compression=type Use type as compression method. Supported values are store (uncompressed) and deflate (gzip algorithm). If a provided option is not supported by any module, that is a fatal error. The first states that it is ignored, the latter states that it is a fatal error. The meaning of any module is subtle, at least for my feeble brain ;-) It suggests that options are passed to all modules, and each module is free to ignore options it does not understand. But at least one module must understand the option, or a fatal error is reported. Yes, I got that, but it is confusing when you are intentionally passing to only one module, as in the original post, xz:9, and considering that the fatal error and ignore it parts are listed in separate sections. Regardless, tar(1) has many options, so a little confusion is not unsurprising :-) -- DE ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: android bsd connectivity tools etc ?
On 8/13/2014 9:21 PM, Shane Ambler wrote: It looks like mass storage was hidden in 4.0 and maybe removed after 4.2. Try searching the android app store for usb mass storage. Android supports MTP over USB 2.0 and 3.0. It also has backward compatibility for PTP. Support for MTP is a bit rocky outside Windows and Mac OSX, but libmtp.sourceforge.net has a short list of clients. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
