Subject: Re: building 1.6 on -current: pax-as-tar problem?
To: None <current-users@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Ben Harris <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/14/2003 22:40:03
In article <20030114215357.D49D6A@proven.weird.com> you write:
>[ 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).
POSIX has never specified the behaviour of tar, and hence is entirely
innocent in this case. POSIX specifies pax, which is intended to be a
portable replacement for both tar and cpio.
Ben Harris <email@example.com>
Portmaster, NetBSD/acorn26 <URL:http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/acorn26/>