tar: "./<file>" or "<file>"

[quinlan@spectrum.cs.bucknell.edu (Daniel Quinlan)]

Background: Debian 0.93 may move back to the tar format.

Why?

1. tar files are smaller

2. We should have room for tar on the boot/root, however Ian does it.

3. There is no need for cpio since we junked the absolute-path idea.

--

Now, Is there any reason to use one command line over the other?

$ tar cvf file.tar ./usr

or

$  tar cvf file.tar usr

The first command line makes tar files with a "./" at the front of the
name and the second doesn't.  I think that "./" tends to be
ever-so-slightly more clear, but is there any difference or real
reason to use one over the other?  (I can't fathom one.)

We will probably specify using one over the other for all binary
(pre-built) packages for consistencies sake.

Also, the new package/project "who is doing what" lists should be done
fairly soon.

Dan

--
Daniel Quinlan  <quinlan@spectrum.cs.bucknell.edu>