Andreas Schwab <schwab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 02:26:53PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>>Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@xxxxxxxxx> 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" short options to have 'f' last, i.e. $(TAR) xof - and not (current) $(TAR) xfo - -- Jakub Narebski Poland ShadeHawk on #git -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html