From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:06:21 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tar: on extract, -o is --no-same-owner
Message-ID: <20091024100621.GH4615@mx.loc>
In-Reply-To: <m38wf1dsjf.fsf@localhost.localdomain>

On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 02:56:33AM -0700, Jakub Narebski wrote:
>Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> writes:
>> Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 02:26:53PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>>>Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:25:24PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:15:43PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> GNU tar-1.22 handles 'o' as no-same-owner only on extract,
>>>>>>> on create, 'o' would be --old-archive.
>
>>>>>>  	$(INSTALL) -d -m 755 '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(template_instdir_SQ)'
>>>>>>  	(cd blt && $(TAR) cf - .) | \
>>>>>> -	(cd '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(template_instdir_SQ)' && umask 022 && $(TAR) xfo -)
>>>>>> +	(cd '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(template_instdir_SQ)' && umask 022 && $(TAR) x --no-numeric-owner -f -)
>>>>>
>>>>> argh, sorry! --no-same-owner of course.
>>>>
>>>> Either way, your change would break non-GNU tar implementations that are
>>>> properly POSIX.1, isn't it?
>>>
>>> I suppose xf - -o would work?
>> 
>> Isn't that the same as 'xfo -'?
>> 
>> (tar isn't specified by POSIX, btw.)
>
>I don't quite understand why 'o' has to be spelled using long name
>--no-same-owner, instead of just correcting the ordering of "old style"

It doesn't have to be, right.

>short options to have 'f' last, i.e.
>
>  $(TAR) xof -
>
>and not (current)
>
>  $(TAR) xfo -

any of "xf - -o" or "xof -" would work for me.