Sergey Poznyakoff wrote: > Paul Eggert <[email protected]> ha escrit: > >> is it wise >> to introduce a new level of verbosity for this? It'd
I would prefer a new option, because... >> be simpler if ordinary -v enabled this new warning, >> as it does the other warnings, and I'm wondering why >> the simpler route wasn't taken. > > That was what I thought of initially. But then, I introduced an > extra level of verbosity to keep `tar -xv' output consistent > with what it is now. I have no strong feelings one way or > the other, so if you think ordinary -v should suffice, it's > quite OK with me. I've been setting TAR_OPTIONS='--keep-old-files --no-same-permissions' in my environment for some time, and coincidentally, just a couple days ago, was taken by surprise when unpacking a new tarball with an already-existing directory. Tar exited successfully with no diagnostics, yet did absolutely nothing. Obviously, when tar exited successfully, I thought all was well and began reviewing the "new" code. It took a while to realize that I was wasting my time reviewing an old version. All of this to say that I hope there is some way to make tar work the way it used to with those options, yet without having to impose the -v option on all uses, which would likely break some users of tar.
