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