Subject: Re: building 1.6 on -current: pax-as-tar problem?
To: Greywolf <email@example.com>
From: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/14/2003 16:53:57
[ On Tuesday, January 14, 2003 at 11:47:29 (-0800), Greywolf wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: building 1.6 on -current: pax-as-tar problem?
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> # > tar: Sorry, unable to determine archive format.
> # But for this I bet the second tar's option flags need a leading '-':
> This is a gratuitous change, if it's something we've done, and it should
> be reverted. Perfect example of backward combatability.
This so-called "gratuitous" change was mandated by the first POSIX
1003.2 version, and that was many years ago (though not specifially for
'tar' of course but rather for all commands in general).
99.999% of the Unix variants and 'tar' clones have supported the
POSIX-mandated command-line syntax for decades now. Hell even the
"original" Seventh Edition UNIX implementation allowed it way back in
Just how backwards do you want to be? If you haven't managed to learn
and to use the "new" syntax by now then it's high time you did. As
people are fond of saying: "If you want v6 then you know where to find
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098; <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Planix, Inc. <email@example.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <firstname.lastname@example.org>