From: Andreas Schwab Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:49:10 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] tar: on extract, -o is --no-same-owner Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20091024091758.GF4615@mx.loc> Bernhard Reutner-Fischer writes: > On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 02:26:53PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>Bernhard Reutner-Fischer 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. >>>> >>>>FYI this was prompted by: >>>> >>>>Signed-off-by: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer >>>> >>>>diff -rdup git-1.6.5.oorig/templates/Makefile git-1.6.5/templates/Makefile >>>>--- git-1.6.5.oorig/templates/Makefile 2009-10-11 03:42:04.000000000 +0200 >>>>+++ git-1.6.5/templates/Makefile 2009-10-23 21:43:06.000000000 +0200 >>>>@@ -50,4 +50,4 @@ clean: >>>> install: all >>>> $(INSTALL) -d -m 755 '$(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.) Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different."