Re: resolution of the tar -I issue
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:00:27 -0500
Gerhard Poul <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > besides that -j ("junkzip"?) is NON-DESCRIPTIVE at all. -Z or -2 would be
> > better... but thats an Upstream Issue I guess.
> hmmm... junkzip is a nice name :)
> try to find a better option char: (source: tar.c)
> /* Available option letters are DEHJQY and aenqy. Some are reserved:
What about two z's?
Or remove the non-argumented version of the -Z option, and force it to
specify a numerical argument:
tar cZf 0 tarfile.tar.Z [ files ]
tar cZf 1 tarfile.tar.gz [ files ]
tar cZf 2 tarfile.tar.bz2 [ files ]
Heck... why not? -Z on its own will be an error, unless people are
very unlucky. And this way it makes a lot more sense and this problem
doesn't arise again. Define -z is -Z1 and -zz is -Z2 even and make it
look planned :).
I only suggest stealing -Z because no-one in their right mind would
use compress except in small places where they have to ... I bet the
feature was just added for completeness anyway.
Sorry if this is excessively cross-posted ...
Sam Vilain, email@example.com WWW: http://sam.vilain.net/
GPG public key: http://sam.vilain.net/sam.asc