| 1 |
Alexander Skwar ha scritto: |
| 2 |
> Stroller <stroller@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> On 24 Sep 2007, at 09:30, Alexander Skwar wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> ... |
| 6 |
>>>> and if p7zip supports pipes, you don't need its support in tar. |
| 7 |
>>>> Just pipe |
| 8 |
>>>> from/to it. |
| 9 |
>>> It does and that's the way it's supposed to be used on unix, according |
| 10 |
>>> to its manpage. |
| 11 |
>> GNU tar features the -j, -z and -Z options. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Yes, bad, isn't it? These options are not part of the Posix standard. |
| 14 |
> It would be good, if these superflous options wouldn't be present at |
| 15 |
> all. I say "superflous", as pipes work just fine. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
It's not that an option becomes "bad" just because it's not carved into |
| 18 |
the POSIX standard. What's important, I guess, is that tar is |
| 19 |
POSIX-compliant, so that if you want, you can build POSIX-compliant |
| 20 |
scripts etc. , but I can't see how non-POSIX but handy extensions could |
| 21 |
be bad. Maybe it's me not seeing the problem. Maybe the POSIX standard |
| 22 |
could just be extended as well. :) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
>> and it would be nice to see p7zip supported |
| 25 |
>> in the same way. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> No. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
"No" means nothing. Tell us why. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
m. |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives