"lufia via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > From: lufia <lufia@xxxxxxxxx> See Documentation/SubmittingPatches[[real-name]]. > Plan 9's tar(1) don't support o option. > So I changed Makefiles to replace tar commands if needed. There is a big gap/leap between these two sentences. The first sentence might justify TAR_XF but it does not explain why TAR_CF is needed at all. Also there is "$(TAR) czf" that is left without getting turned into $(TAR_CF)z. Are there still remaining uses of $(TAR) after applying this patch? If with a different justification, a patch that abstracts our use of "tar" as an archiving tool into different use cases and give one Makefile macro to each of them with more meaningful names might be more palatable. E.g. instead of TAR_CF that abstracts only the "tar cf" part, make "take everything in the current directory and send an archive of it to the standard output", i.e. "tar cf - .", into a Makefile macro, with matching "take an archive from the standard input and extract it to the current directory", i.e. "tar xf -", as a matching Makefile macro, perhaps---that way people without a working "tar" might be able to use zip, cpio or pax (or a script written around them) as an alternative "archiving tool", for example. Side note. The above would probably be a huge undertaking and I am not suggesting it as a serious counterproposal. A more plausible alternative is to just touch "$(TAR) xof -" and replace it with $(TAR_XOF) or even $(EXTRACT_TARBALL_AS_MYSELF) while leaving $(TAR_CF) alone. That _might_ be palatable. I dunno.
