El Lunes, 29 de Agosto de 2005 00:31, Jeremy Huntwork escribió:
> One of the packages is unpacked from '/sources' while the other one is
> unpacked from '../' - Presumably they're located in the same directory.
> Which location should we be using?
IMHO, ../
Both for consistency with how the patc
On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 01:20:51PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Basically, the old style of options for commands like ps and tar are
> deprecated. The book should be teaching good style.
>
Thanks for the clear pointer, Bruce.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: h
On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 09:44:41AM -0600, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> For the glibc-linuxthreads package we use 'tar -xjvf' and for the
> bash-docs package we use 'tar -zxf'. Should we continue to use verbosity
OK, I just noticed something else. (Surprised I didn't catch it
before...)
One of the pac
Andrew Benton wrote:
> Isn't the - thing to do with compatibility with BSD?
Take a look at `info tar`. Basically it says that:
"On the other hand, this old style syntax makes it difficult to match
option letters with their corresponding arguments, and is often
confusing."
and
"Old options
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Andrew Benton wrote these words on 08/28/05 12:27 CST:
But this would work
tar xfC somefile.tar.gz /somewhere
Thanks for the lesson Andrew!
It was just a lucky guess. Isn't the - thing to do with compatibility with BSD?
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinf
Andrew Benton wrote these words on 08/28/05 12:27 CST:
> But this would work
>
> tar xfC somefile.tar.gz /somewhere
Thanks for the lesson Andrew! I have always been under the misguided
impression that the argument to the parameter must follow the parameter.
Meaning -f required the somefile.tar.
Randy McMurchy wrote:
This works:
tar xf somefile.tar.gz -C /somewhere
This would not work:
tar xf somefile.tar.gz C /somewhere
So, perhaps it is for consistency sake more than technical.
But this would work
tar xfC somefile.tar.gz /somewhere
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listin
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 08/28/05 11:20 CST:
> Indeed. But I had thought that there had been a technically correct
> reason for including that. Anyone care to refresh my memory?
Bruce usually summarizes this one up really well. As you Jeremy,
I've forgotten the exact details, but ther
On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 06:18:39PM +0200, Keith Moore wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the comment, Randy. Makes sense to me. If no one has any
> > objections, then, I'll change both commands to be 'tar -xf'.
>
> Not to be totally pedantic, but the leading '-' is also unnecessary.
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Thanks for the comment, Randy. Makes sense to me. If no one has any
> objections, then, I'll change both commands to be 'tar -xf'.
Not to be totally pedantic, but the leading '-' is also unnecessary.
KM
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http
On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 10:53:32AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> I believe the -v option should not be used on either. My philosophy
> is that if something is being untarred to a final resting place
> (i.e., somewhere in /usr), then use it as this creates a log of the
> installed files. However, i
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 08/28/05 10:44 CST:
> For the glibc-linuxthreads package we use 'tar -xjvf' and for the
> bash-docs package we use 'tar -zxf'. Should we continue to use verbosity
> for one and not the other?
I believe the -v option should not be used on either. My philosophy
Hey All,
Had a question about the use of tar commands in the LFS book. It is a
trivial matter, and probably doesn't make a bit of difference, but I was
interested in people's opinions anyway.
Currently, in the LFS book, tar is used twice (at leas in the gcc4 book
- haven't checked development). O
13 matches
Mail list logo
