| 1 |
Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:34:41 +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> What does this have to do with GNU tar and it adding superflous |
| 6 |
>> options? Quite a lot. -j et.al. are non-standard options. If a |
| 7 |
>> (badly written) script relies on the presence of -j, this script |
| 8 |
>> won't work with a POSIX compliant tar |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> The script is only badly written if it is supposed to be POSIX |
| 11 |
> compliant. Additional features can enhance a program |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Given that we're talking about use of non-standard options present |
| 14 |
only in GNU tar vs. easily accessible standard compliant ways |
| 15 |
of solving the same problem: No, a script is badly written, if it |
| 16 |
makes use of non-standard options. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> and make scripts |
| 19 |
> using it more readable/efficient/compact, providing the environment does |
| 20 |
> not require POSIX-compliance. e.g. portage can use tar-specific |
| 21 |
> enhancements if tar is in system on all profiles. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Yes, it's very bad that Gentoo scripts don't limit themselves to |
| 24 |
POSIX. Another windmill to fight against. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Alexander Skwar |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives