Subject: Re: bin/19916: pax-as-tar doesn't handle -L
To: Thomas Klausner <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
Date: 01/19/2003 13:42:05
[ On Sunday, January 19, 2003 at 13:22:29 (+0100), Thomas Klausner wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: bin/19916: pax-as-tar doesn't handle -L
> 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.
I was going to deprecate '-h' in my version of the tar front-end, but I
don't remember why now. Looking at it again today I'm more inclined to
deprectate my '-L' and stick to '-h' too, especially since '-h' was the
choice for the original AT&T-based 'tar' in 4.4BSD:
-h Force tar to follow symbolic links as if they were normal files or
directories. Normally, tar does not follow symbolic links.
-H Force tar to follow symbolic links on the command line only as if
they were normal files or directories. Normally, tar does not fol-
low symbolic links. Note that -h supercedes -H.
In that case the '-L' from V10 seems more interesting, as it is
effectively the same as 'pax -P' (and 'tar -P' is already taken).
> 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.
Sounds good to me! ;-)
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <email@example.com>