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

[Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>]

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.
>>>>
>>>>FYI this was prompted by:
>>>>
>>>>Signed-off-by: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>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."