Bdale Garbee wrote:
>The following table summarizes pattern-matching default values:
>
>MembersDefault settings
>--
>Inclusion `--no-wildcards --anchored
>--no-w
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 10:36:20AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 07:02:15AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > > Debian still has to provide an upgrade path for users upgrading from
> > > Sarge.
> > > We cannot blindly break users scripts.
> >
> > Here, the only way seem
Oops, guess I should have checked if it was already done. My bad.
(Given that the warning is working, why were people making such a
fuss? Well, never mind.)
--
Barak A. Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hamilton Institute & Dept Comp Sci, NUI Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland
http://www.bcl.hamilto
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Barak A. Pearlmutter) writes:
> As a compromise that addresses some of the issues I would suggest the
> following: go with upstream, but add some convenience code, to whit:
>
> (1) Hot-wire tar to check an environment variable TAR_WILDCARD_DEFAULT
> and activate the --wildca
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 10:32:30PM -0400, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 10:36 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > In addition, I would suggest we reinstate the previous behaviour, but
> > display a warning when wildcards are used but --wildcards is not set.
>
> The problem with this is
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 10:36 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Here, the only way seems to be putting an entry in NEWS.Debian (for
> > users script, ie things not under our control).
Good idea, Christian.
> In addition, I would suggest we reinstate the previous behaviour, but
> display a warning w
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 03:40:49PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> In that case just reverting the Debian change isn't the right way. If
> you think that the change is wrong, then you should make upstream fix
> it: changing behaviour of tar is one thing, but having different
> behaviour of a basic
Both sides in this discussion seem to have valid concerns:
FOR making --wildcard the default
- compatibility with upstream
- compatibility with standards
- compatibility with other distributions
- whatever reasons POSIX had for this were probably sensible
- upstream's judgement on
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 07:02:15AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > Debian still has to provide an upgrade path for users upgrading from Sarge.
> > We cannot blindly break users scripts.
>
> Here, the only way seems to be putting an entry in NEWS.Debian (for
> users script, ie things not under
> Debian still has to provide an upgrade path for users upgrading from Sarge.
> We cannot blindly break users scripts.
Here, the only way seems to be putting an entry in NEWS.Debian (for
users script, ie things not under our control).
> We did something similar with "su" but we did it earlier in
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 01:22:12PM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote:
>
> Since this seems to have been an intentional behavior change by
> upstream to better align with a published standard, I'm uninclined to
> fight it, and think our best response is to update our utilities to
> include the --wildcards
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I fear there will be a lot. for me lintian failed, and I had some
> curious behaviour with one package I sponsored recently. To avoid
> problems atm, I force my pbuilder to use the tar from testing.
A fixed version of lintian will be uploaded today.
On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 15:31 +0200, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
> It is also bound to break numerous private scripts on peoples systems.
> And for no good reason, the default has been like this for years now,
> why change that? For the POSIX-pedantic people there is always the POSIX
> mode.
In that case ju
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 13:37:21 +0200
Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 10:02 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Le lun 26 juin 2006 21:53, Petr Vandrovec a écrit :
> > > Maybe it could be default for tar's POSIX mode, but I have no idea
> > > why GNU mode behavior sho
On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 13:00 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> It's not so much packages already in the archive, it's every package
> that is being prepared to be uploaded.
>
> Lintian *always* fails for all packages that I build on a system with
> the updated tar. None of those packages failed prior t
Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 10:02 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> Le lun 26 juin 2006 21:53, Petr Vandrovec a écrit :
>>> Maybe it could be default for tar's POSIX mode, but I have no idea
>>> why GNU mode behavior should be changed in any way.
>> I second that. it's now complet
Le mar 27 juin 2006 13:37, Thijs Kinkhorst a écrit :
> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 10:02 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Le lun 26 juin 2006 21:53, Petr Vandrovec a écrit :
> > > Maybe it could be default for tar's POSIX mode, but I have no
> > > idea why GNU mode behavior should be changed in any way.
On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 10:02 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Le lun 26 juin 2006 21:53, Petr Vandrovec a écrit :
> > Maybe it could be default for tar's POSIX mode, but I have no idea
> > why GNU mode behavior should be changed in any way.
>
> I second that. it's now completely unpossible to do bas
Le lun 26 juin 2006 21:53, Petr Vandrovec a écrit :
> Maybe it could be default for tar's POSIX mode, but I have no idea
> why GNU mode behavior should be changed in any way.
I second that. it's now completely unpossible to do basic packaging
work, because such a change wasn't planned. I also don
Petr Vandrovec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This decision makes tar completely incompatible. Programs which worked
> fine with tar for 6 years are suddenly broken, and now you have to have
> two versions - one for 'tar' before this brokeness, which do not pass
> --wildcards, and one for this bro
"Petr Vandrovec" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Since this seems to have been an intentional behavior change by
upstream to better align with a published standard, I'm uninclined to
fight it, and think our best response is to update our utilities to
include the --wildcards option, with
[I'm not on Debian-devel, so please CC me]
Bdale Garbee wrote:
The new tar behavior with respect to wildcards is not a change I
introduced just for Debian, it's a new upstream change that appears to
be quite intentional and well documented, as per this text from the tar
info docs:
The follow
The new tar behavior with respect to wildcards is not a change I
introduced just for Debian, it's a new upstream change that appears to
be quite intentional and well documented, as per this text from the tar
info docs:
The following table summarizes pattern-matching default values:
Members
23 matches
Mail list logo
