Re: [PATCH] tar: on extract, -o is --no-same-owner

From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 24, 2009, 09:56 UTC
Message-ID: <m38wf1dsjf.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <m28wf1unop.fsf@whitebox.home>

Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> writes:

Show 8 quoted lines

> 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.

Show 15 quoted lines

>>>>>  	$(INSTALL) -d -m 755 '$(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" short options to have 'f' last, i.e.

  $(TAR) xof -

and not (current)

  $(TAR) xfo -

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git