Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!mouse
From: mouse@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu (der Mouse)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: tar options/function designators
Message-ID: <1991Jun15.152405.24789@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu>
Date: 15 Jun 91 15:24:05 GMT
References: <11711@mirsa.inria.fr> <1991Jun12.005655.27185@csc.canberra.edu.au> <1991Jun12.174240.8590@gorm.ruc.dk>
Organization: McGill Research Centre for Intelligent Machines
Lines: 18

In article <1991Jun12.174240.8590@gorm.ruc.dk>, jba@gorm.ruc.dk (Jan B. Andersen) writes:
> rvp@softserver.canberra.edu.au (Rey Paulo) writes:
>> zcat file.tar.Z | tar -xvf -
> Maybe a silly question, but what are the net-opinion on using '-'
> when specifying tar functions?  Personally I don't do it, as the
> function letters aren't optional [sic].

Speaking for myself, I can't see that it makes much difference; any tar
that spends much time dropping the stray - should be replaced with any
of the good free tars available.

I don't use the extra -, for what that's worth.

					der Mouse

			old: mcgill-vision!mouse
			new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu