Re: tar -I incompatibility

[Goswin Brederlow <goswin.brederlow@student.uni-tuebingen.de>]

>>>>> " " == Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:

     > On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 02:05:27AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
    >> On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 04:25:43AM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann
    >> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 03:28:46AM +0100, Goswin
    >> Brederlow wrote: > > "tar -xIvvf file.tar.bz2" has been in use
    >> under linux for over a year > > by pretty much everybody. Even
    >> if the author never released it as > > stable, all linux
    >> distributions did it. I think that should count > > something.
    >> > > It tells a lot about the people making the distributions at
    >> least.
    >> 
    >> Before making such snide comments, take a look at the
    >> changelog.Debian entries relating to the switch from 1.13 to
    >> 1.13.x.

     > I see. Well, I don't think that Bdale did something wrong with
     > including 1.13.x. But I find the reactions to the flag change
     > shown here by some people quite inappropriate. When using
     > unreleased software, people have to expect such changes,
     > especially for non-standard extensions. It happens all the
     > time.

On anything apart from Debian I wouldn't say a word about it.

BUT on Debian tar -I is a standard and its stable. So I start
screaming. Since the Debian maintainer made -I stable with a unstable
upstream source, its his responsibility to watch it.

Its the authors fault to have not resolved the problem for so long and
suddenly resolve it in such a disasterous way, but also the Debian
maintainers fault not to warn us and ease our transition.

Fault might be a to strong word, I just mean that there should be a
new upload asap that eigther reverts the -I change or tells the user
about it. Having -I silently just do something else is not an option
in my eyes.

MfG
        Goswin