Re: tar -I incompatibility
>>>>> " " == 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
>> Before making such snide comments, take a look at the
>> changelog.Debian entries relating to the switch from 1.13 to
> 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
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.