Am 20.01.2018 um 14:44 schrieb Randall S. Becker:
> On January 20, 2018 7:31 AM, René Scharfe wrote:
>> Am 19.01.2018 um 18:34 schrieb randall.s.becker@xxxxxxxxxx:
>>> From: "Randall S. Becker" <rsbecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> * Makefile: Add TAR_EXTRACT_OPTIONS to allow platform options to
>>> be specified if needed. The default is xof.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Randall S. Becker <rsbecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
>>> Makefile | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1
>>> deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile index 1a9b23b67..040e9eacd
>>> 100644 --- a/Makefile +++ b/Makefile @@ -429,6 +429,9 @@ all:: #
>>> running the test scripts (e.g., bash has better support for "set
>>> -x" # tracing). # +# Define TAR_EXTRACT_OPTIONS if you want to
>>> change the default +behaviour # from xvf to something else during
>>> installation.
>>
>> "xof" instead of "xvf"?
>
> When I look at the parent commit, it says xof, so I wanted to
> preserve existing behaviour by default. Our install process wants to
> see the actual set of files, so we wanted to use xvof but that hardly
> seemed of general interest. I was hoping an option to control it
> would be agreeable.
Preserving the default is good. I meant that the default is "xof",
but the added line implies it was "xvf" instead.
Seeing your actual use case confirms that my suggestion below would
work for you.
>
>>> +# # When cross-compiling, define HOST_CPU as the canonical name
>>> of the
>> CPU on
>>> # which the built Git will run (for instance "x86_64").
>>>
>>> @@ -452,6 +455,7 @@ LDFLAGS = ALL_CFLAGS = $(CPPFLAGS) $(CFLAGS)
>>> ALL_LDFLAGS = $(LDFLAGS) STRIP ?= strip +TAR_EXTRACT_OPTIONS =
>>> xof
>>>
>>> # Create as necessary, replace existing, make ranlib unneeded.
>>> ARFLAGS = rcs @@ -2569,7 +2573,7 @@ install: all ifndef
>>> NO_GETTEXT $(INSTALL) -d -m 755 '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(localedir_SQ)'
>>> (cd po/build/locale && $(TAR) cf - .) | \ - (cd
>>> '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(localedir_SQ)' && umask 022 && $(TAR) xof -) +
>>> (cd '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(localedir_SQ)' && umask 022 && $(TAR)
>>> +$(TAR_EXTRACT_OPTIONS) -)
>>
>> Hmm. TAR_EXTRACT_OPTIONS always needs to have f (or -f, or --file)
>> at the end to go together with the following dash, meaning to
>> extract from stdin. And x (or -x, or --extract) is probably needed
>> in all cases as well. So wouldn't it make more sense to only put
>> the o (or -o, or --no-same-owner) into TAR_EXTRACT_OPTIONS and
>> enforce x and f?
>
> This is a good suggestion, and I'd love to do that, if I could
> guarantee a modern tar, which I can't. The platform comes with a
> really old-school tar from some old (seemingly BSD4.3) epoch that
> only takes one option set. There is a more modern tar that can be
> optionally installed if the sysadmin decides to that takes a slightly
> more modern set, which could support your request, and my team also
> has a gnu port that is very modern. I can't control what customers
> are choosing to have installed, unfortunately. Your point is well
> made and I am completely on board with it, but it introduces a
> configuration requirement.
Long options would be nice to nice to have, but are not my main
point; I included them mainly to spare readers from firing up
"man tar" to look up the meaning of the short ones.
I just meant to say that something like this here would make more
sense because you always need x and f- anyway:
TAR_EXTRACT_OPTIONS = o
... ${TAR} x${TAR_EXTRACT_OPTIONS}f -
> As with the broadening setbuf (patch 2/6) change, I would like to
> consider this for the future, having a slightly different more
> complex idea. I could introduce something like this:
>
> 1. HAS_ANCIENT_TAR=UnfortunatelyYes in config.mak.uname that disables
> this capability all together 2. HAS_ANCIENT_TAR=AreYouKiddingMe
> (joke) then set up TAR_EXTRACT_ADDITIONAL_OPTIONS above and beyond
> the default, so --file, --no-same-owner would always be in effect for
> that operation.
>
> The micro-project would also, logically, need to apply to other tar
> occurrences throughout the code and potentially need a test case
> written for it (not entirely sure what that would test, yet).
> Is that a reasonable approach?
As long as old-school dash-less flags suffice for our purposes
(including yours) we can just keep using that style everywhere and
avoid adding more settings. It would be a different matter if we
needed features that have no short flag, or are only offered by
certain tar implementations.
René
