Strake dixit:
>miss them. Archiver/compressor integration loses, for it needs a flag
>and code for each compression format.
I’d not use those anyway. I normally compress with:
find foo -type f | sort | cpio -oC512 -Hustar | gzip -n9 >foo.tgz
Failing that, this one’s almost the same:
tar -b 1 -
On 06/07/2013, Galos, David wrote:
> The attached patch shows my current work on adapting sltar
> to sbase. It is functional, but, there are still open questions
> regarding tar. The big deal is the argument parsing: I would
> like to use the ARG macros in tar, but I'm not sure how that
> fits wi
Why don't we just use popen?
On Jul 7, 2013 3:24 AM, "Markus Wichmann" wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 10:53:01PM -0500, Galos, David wrote:
> > > I also see it a lot in scripts, along with using full options instead
> > > of short--perhaps to be more verbose? So, for compatibility, perhaps it
>
Markus Wichmann dixit:
>One way I also find myself using quite often:
>
>tar xfC filename.tar.gz directory
This one is, I believe, not portable: behind f the
filename must be immediately. (Also you forgot z.)
An often-seen case of this unportablity is people
using 'tar xfz foo.tgz' instead of xzf
On 2013-07-07, at 05:53, David Galos wrote:
> If sbase gains programs to do compression, and the code is nicely librarized,
> I will consider thinking about considering adding letting tar do that.
Why not call out to the compression program? Pipes are not patented by shells.
This decouples things
On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 10:53:01PM -0500, Galos, David wrote:
> > I also see it a lot in scripts, along with using full options instead
> > of short--perhaps to be more verbose? So, for compatibility, perhaps it
> > is best to allow both.
> If you mean GNU --long-options, then never in a million ye
> I also see it a lot in scripts, along with using full options instead
> of short--perhaps to be more verbose? So, for compatibility, perhaps it
> is best to allow both.
If you mean GNU --long-options, then never in a million years :) If
you mean both dashed and non, that is likely what I will do.
>I would suggest a subset of POSIX tar options. It could be possibly
>amended with "z", "Z", "j" and "J" options, though using
>
>A $ tar c dirname | gzip -9c > filename.tar.gz
>
>or
>
>A $ tar cf - dirname | gzip -9c > filename.tar.gz
I usually use:
gunzip < fil
On 2013-07-06, at 12:15, David Galos wrote:
> In short, how do you fine folks invoke your tar?
My habit relays on compression scheme detection:
tar cf foo.txz ~/stuff
tar xf bar.tbz
-Truls
On Jul 6, 2013 5:04 PM, "Andrew Hills" wrote:
>
> So, for compatibility, perhaps it is best to allow both.
You mean the whole lot of GNU tar long options including filename rewriting
and masks? I don't see any way such implementation could fit "suckless"
principles.
I would suggest a subset of P
On Sat, 6 Jul 2013 10:59:36 -0400 Alex Pilon wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 01:29:02PM +0200, Dmitrij Czarkoff wrote:
> > Apparently is there anybody who uses dashes in tar's keys?
>
> Yeah. Old habit.
I also see it a lot in scripts, along with using full options instead
of short--perhaps to b
On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 01:29:02PM +0200, Dmitrij Czarkoff wrote:
> Apparently is there anybody who uses dashes in tar's keys?
Yeah. Old habit.
On 06/07/2013 8:30 PM, "Daniel Bryan" wrote:
>
> tar xzf filename.tar.gz ~/scratch/
Sorry, this should have been:
> tar xzf filename.tar.gz -C ~/scratch/
Apparently is there anybody who uses dashes in tar's keys?
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
Also
$ tar cjf file.tar.bz2 folder
$ tar cJf file.tar.xz folder
and
$ tar xf filename.tar.
On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 08:30:39PM +1000, Daniel Bryan wrote:
> tar xzf filename.tar.gz ~/scratch/
> On 06/07/2013 8:20 PM, "Dmitrij Czarkoff" wrote:
>
> > On Jul 6, 2013 12:16 PM, "Galos, David"
> > w
tar xzf filename.tar.gz ~/scratch/
On 06/07/2013 8:20 PM, "Dmitrij Czarkoff" wrote:
> On Jul 6, 2013 12:16 PM, "Galos, David"
> wrote:
> >
> > In short, how do you fine folks invoke your tar?
>
> $ tar czf filename.tar.gz foldername
> $ tar tzf filename.tar.gz
> $ tar xzf filename.tar.gz
>
> ---
On Jul 6, 2013 12:16 PM, "Galos, David" wrote:
>
> In short, how do you fine folks invoke your tar?
$ tar czf filename.tar.gz foldername
$ tar tzf filename.tar.gz
$ tar xzf filename.tar.gz
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
The attached patch shows my current work on adapting sltar
to sbase. It is functional, but, there are still open questions
regarding tar. The big deal is the argument parsing: I would
like to use the ARG macros in tar, but I'm not sure how that
fits with the average tar invocation.
In short, how
18 matches
Mail list logo
