an alternative suggestion for "tar" and user/group names

Robert P. J. Day rpjday at mindspring.com
Fri Apr 21 16:18:27 UTC 2006


On Fri, 21 Apr 2006, Paul Fox wrote:

>  > actually, this gives me the chance to ask (another) stupid question.
>  > BB tar already has the potential to support long options but, in some
>  > cases, there are no short forms for those long options.  at least, not
>  > *standard* short forms based on GNU tar.
>  >
>  > for example, in GNU tar, there is no single letter option to represent
>  > "--numeric-owner".  how would that be handled in BB tar?
>  >
>  > i'm looking at the long options definition in tar.c and i can see
>  > things like:
>  >
>  >     { "no-same-owner",      0,  NULL,   '\203' },
>  >     { "no-same-permissions",0,  NULL,   '\213' },
>  >     ...
>  >     { "exclude",            1,  NULL,   '\n' },
>  >     ...
>  >
>  > what's happening here?
>
> the bb option parser insists on having a short option to correspond
> with very long option.  the values you see there are dummy values,
> unlikely to ever be actually typed, which act as placeholders in the
> struct. yes, it's really ugly.

i thought as much, i just wanted to make sure.  in that case, enabling
"--numeric-owner" support will require enabling both long options
*and* UID/GID support.  (i imagine it would be sufficient for the
Config.in file to just have UID/GID support depend on long options.)

rday



More information about the busybox mailing list