On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 00:40:15 -0700, Philip Guenther wrote: > First off, I had earlier written this: >>Now, the behavior you describe is required by the standard > > Further checking shows that I was incorrect: if compliance to the > SUSv3 XSI extension is claimed, then the 'test' utility must return > true for this: > [ -n = -n -o -n = -e ]
and ? Does it ? # if [ -n = -n -o -n = -e ]; then > echo bar > fi ksh: [: -n: unexpected operator/operand No, not. > says this: > >4 arguments: > The results are unspecified. Results are unspecified, or syntax may be wrong or right. Do as you like ... > There was a thread back in Jan 2006, from which I'll point people at > David Korn's final comment in the thread: > > https://www.opengroup.org/sophocles/show_mail.tpl?CALLER=show_archive.tpl&source=L&listname=austin-group-l&id=9010 Oh, thanks for an enlightening read, really. And what is the second last sentence in his message ? > As a result, the only way to get a usable test was to just use the > number of arguments as a guide. This way would allow most of existing > scripts to be portable, Does it ? No, not. >> Woodchuck: Thanks for the confirmation of tar being frontend to pax. >> Then, what is the good reason that the frontend kind of suppresses the >> abilities of the underlying routine ? > > What ability of pax is tar suppressing? pax can't save files with names > longer than 100 characters into 'ustar' or 'tar' format archives either. Which is where *I* need to correct myself. I remembered a Fine Proposal on this same list to use pax -x cpio for long filenames. But maybe this also doesn't work ? If it does, however, would I mind another option to tar for those with Woodchuck's old archives; like tar -a (for antique) using the old tar format and for the rest the frontend for pax with '-x cpio' ? I even guess pretty much, that for -t or -x or whatsoever, the program can understand the archive format. Uwe
