Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Alexander Skwar <listen@×××××××××××××××.name>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: star
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:16:04
Message-Id: 2734612.RV0q0BIfvm@kn.gn.rtr.message-center.info
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: star by "b.n."
1 b.n. <brullonulla@×××××.com> wrote:
2
3 > Alexander Skwar ha scritto:
4 >> Stroller <stroller@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote:
5 >>
6 >>> On 24 Sep 2007, at 09:30, Alexander Skwar wrote:
7 >>>> ...
8 >>>>> and if p7zip supports pipes, you don't need its support in tar.
9 >>>>> Just pipe
10 >>>>> from/to it.
11 >>>> It does and that's the way it's supposed to be used on unix, according
12 >>>> to its manpage.
13 >>> GNU tar features the -j, -z and -Z options.
14 >>
15 >> Yes, bad, isn't it? These options are not part of the Posix standard.
16 >> It would be good, if these superflous options wouldn't be present at
17 >> all. I say "superflous", as pipes work just fine.
18 >
19 > It's not that an option becomes "bad" just because it's not carved into
20 > the POSIX standard.
21
22 To a degree, it is.
23
24 > What's important, I guess, is that tar is
25 > POSIX-compliant, so that if you want, you can build POSIX-compliant
26 > scripts etc. ,
27
28 Depends. On the hand, you're right. But if non-compliant options
29 exist, people tend to use them. That's bad in so far, as they get
30 used to non-standard behaviour. That's especially bad, as standard
31 compliants solution exist.
32
33 > but I can't see how non-POSIX but handy extensions could
34 > be bad.
35
36 Let me give you a different example, although it has nothing
37 to do with POSIX.
38
39 Internet Explorer translates a \ in a URL to /. That's a non
40 standard compliant behaviour. Now, as many people (still *G*)
41 use IE, many people rely on that mis-behaviour of IE and make
42 it hard for non-misbehaving browsers (ie. Mozilla) to display
43 the content.
44
45 What does this have to do with GNU tar and it adding superflous
46 options? Quite a lot. -j et.al. are non-standard options. If a
47 (badly written) script relies on the presence of -j, this script
48 won't work with a POSIX compliant tar (like star or any Unix
49 tar (eg. Sun, HP, ...)). Is that bad? Yes, it is. It is bad, as
50 there's an easily accessible solution to this problem available:
51 Use pipes! In this case, the solution would be:
52
53 tar cf - dir | bzip2 > dir.tar.bz2
54 tar cf - dir | 7z a -si dir.tar.7z
55
56 Or for decompression:
57
58 bzcat dir.tar.bz2 | tar xf -
59 7z x -so dir.tar.7z | tar xf -
60
61 > Maybe it's me not seeing the problem.
62
63 Yep.
64
65 > Maybe the POSIX standard
66 > could just be extended as well. :)
67
68 Equally fine.
69
70 >>> and it would be nice to see p7zip supported
71 >>> in the same way.
72 >>
73 >> No.
74 >
75 > "No" means nothing. Tell us why.
76
77 Pipes exist. The current "integration" of 7-zip is fine. There's
78 no need to integrate other compression into tar. Actually, there's
79 no need at all to integrate ANY compression alg. into tar.
80
81 Furthermore, especially with 7zip, an integration into tar would
82 make the use of 7zip somewhat limited, as all of the additional
83 command line options of 7z would not be accessible anymore.
84
85 Alexander Skwar
86
87 --
88 gentoo-user@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: star Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk>