From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer Subject: Re: [PATCH] tar: on extract, -o is --no-same-owner Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:05:02 +0200 Message-ID: <20091024100502.GG4615@mx.loc> References: <1256328943-22136-1-git-send-email-rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> <20091023202524.GE4615@mx.loc> <20091023210648.GA23122@mx.loc> <7vocnxajj6.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20091024091758.GF4615@mx.loc> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano , vda.linux@googlemail.com, busybox@busybox.net, git@vger.kernel.org To: Andreas Schwab X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Oct 24 12:04:42 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1N1dUH-0002Je-W4 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:04:42 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751939AbZJXKEa (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Oct 2009 06:04:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751886AbZJXKE3 (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Oct 2009 06:04:29 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f227.google.com ([209.85.218.227]:47425 "EHLO mail-bw0-f227.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751563AbZJXKE3 (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Oct 2009 06:04:29 -0400 Received: by bwz27 with SMTP id 27so1300669bwz.21 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 2009 03:04:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:date:from:to:cc :subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=seUMR/+jf+HExyljf09BmfV/AHmxlWmMM4DoedBzY6Y=; b=qapuimu1JinETtNRnV6mItlH3Dhc6poeWUixOCj3kXNISzcZsTatmk7XFgly6R04Kx vExWZOUaufGI+E3P2CHui9rq3wHX7Tstahjgaxu+ktPJM3+rvND7eiOv5cgb28OtkOPZ gFsUjCuuNnsYMn2kT+TMsyf3Cx6dC3MaemyRs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=qHYUdYyLvvN7AhCF2i8TQO/mw9Jz6lPlCT0sbdRelfvVyjBdtYmtZ+SQeZX+SXveN+ Qpzl0TO4qVx9efNgIlTUYd+qFYk58Q3CMvl6CMQsSNDQjg1w2CmRgDTKeb815q2HKn+o EVhMmjpIFS/w1h8oFCrl6JlpstySMs+U0NQU8= Received: by 10.204.7.144 with SMTP id d16mr3460815bkd.209.1256378672722; Sat, 24 Oct 2009 03:04:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from s42.loc (85-127-251-67.dynamic.xdsl-line.inode.at [85.127.251.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 14sm488932bwz.5.2009.10.24.03.04.31 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 24 Oct 2009 03:04:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cow by s42.loc with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1N1dUc-00014f-6s; Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:05:02 +0200 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 11:49:10AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: >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 -'? Not really (if you do not permute the arguments which we don't in busybox, for size reasons). f specifies the file so "fo" acts on file "o". "xof -" would work for me as well as "xf - -o", it's just that "xfo -" does not work.