bug-tar
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-tar] --auto-compress command line option


From: Denis Excoffier
Subject: Re: [Bug-tar] --auto-compress command line option
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 17:28:21 +0100

I'm not sure i understand all the implications of what Helmut has written. I can add: - of course the configure options would not be mandatory, and if not set, the
  behaviour is like now
- at individual level, to use a compress program of your own, you always can take
  benefit of the --use-compress-program command line option
- at site level, the selection of which versions of the compress/gzip/ bzip2/lzma programs to be used is done by the same people as those that select (and
  configure, build, install) the version of tar
- with the --auto-compress option, you don't know in advance which compress
  program will be used, therefore in my opinion you cannot use
  --use-compress-program in this case
- yes perhaps my proposal would also need the addition of a bypass option, in order to the PATH to be used instead of the full path selected at configure time - i only wish to get the same mechanism as with the tar program itself. You can say:
  (PATH=/site/local/bin; tar etc.)
  but you can also say
  (/site/local/bin/tar etc.)
  that is: not relying on the PATH if you don't want to
If you need to enforce a specific set of compress programs, you have to wrap tar into a subshell like the one Helmut proposes, this is too heavy in my opinion, or...
  please Helmut show us your login shell!!!

Regards,

Denis Excoffier.

Le 9 févr. 2008 à 11:34, Sergey Poznyakoff a écrit :

Helmut Waitzmann <address@hidden> ha escrit:

3) i suggest that the location of the compress/gzip/bzip2/lzma programs be settable at configure time, and that the tar executable uses the PATH only when not set at configure time or not found in the indicated place.
[..]
Please, don't do this, as it would bar users from using a version of the
compress programs of their own, should they need to.

I agree with Helmut, this would be a desastrous change.

Regards,
Sergey






reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]