Subject: Re: bin/19916: pax-as-tar doesn't handle -L
To: NetBSD GNATS submissions and followups <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Thomas Klausner <email@example.com>
Date: 01/19/2003 13:22:29
On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 12:54:47AM -0500, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> There's some strong precedent that GNU tar's '-L' is not portable anyway.
Yes, I saw that.
Until shortly, NetBSD's pax-as-tar had a different meaning for -L
too, but since it's the same as -h, it was removed.
> Blindly copying all kinds of weird non-portable features from GNU Tar's
> command line interface for pax-as-tar is really quite pointless -- the
> better alternative is to tell people to use GNU Tar when that's what
> they want (e.g. pkgsrc/archivers/gtar), and otherwise to either learn
> the new interface, or to switch to the native (and _standard_) pax
I'm not saying we need this, I'm just noting down the difference to
the Tar we had before so that we can decide if we want it or not.
This PR has already been suspended because it is "unlikely" we'll
get this -L.