JeffK. wrote:
> How do I get the tar exclude file feature to work? I created a file
> foo, with the following using both cat > and ed.
>
> *.o
> *.tar
> *.z
> "*.o"
> "*.tar"
> "*.z"
>
snip]
>
> The command on my Sun system doesn't exclude the types of files listed
> in foo.

tar is not a shell. It does not expand shell metacharacters such as *
(at least standard Solaris tar doesn't - YMMV for other variants).

Your exclude file needs to contain THE EXACT FILENAMES you want to
exclude. The "find" construction described by Peter elsewhere in this
thread is a method of doing this.


--
Tony

In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> This is why it is a good idea to use e.g. 'star'. It gives you a lot more

And being the author of "star" would not give you a biased view of the
matter?

> features than Sun's tar, is much fater and alreasy implements the POSIX.1-2001

You must declare your relation whenever you give advice.

Peter

In article <lu7tgb.mlo.ln@news.it.uc3m.es>,
Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
>> This is why it is a good idea to use e.g. 'star'. It gives you a lot more
>
>And being the author of "star" would not give you a biased view of the
>matter?

Everybody is free to compare and to decide for himself.

Star is the tar implementation with the most features I am aware of and you may
be shure that I compare star to all other known tar implementaions.

--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1
schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL: http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

In article <qfftgb.4hh.ln@news.it.uc3m.es>,
Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
>> In article <lu7tgb.mlo.ln@news.it.uc3m.es>,
>> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>>>In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>>> This is why it is a good idea to use e.g. 'star'. It gives you a lot more
>>>
>>>And being the author of "star" would not give you a biased view of the
>>>matter?
>
>> Everybody is free to compare and to decide for himself.
>
>They are. You are not. That's the problem - you announced that star
>is ...
>
>> Star is the tar implementation with the most features I am aware of and you may
>
>And that's something you are NOT free to decide for yourself, because
>you have an interest.
>
>> be shure that I compare star to all other known tar implementaions.
>
>No, we may not be sure. We may especially not be sure that you do so in
>an unbiased way, since in particular you seem unaware of the possibility
>that you may not. In any case, WHAT other tar implementations?
>
>Please do not repeat your "comparisons" without announcing that you are
>the author of the thing you are comparing.

Looks like you are not even willing to look at star and believe from your belly
that another implementation is better. GNU tar is the tar that creates the most
problems because it is not standard compliant and thus gives people problems
that like to extract non standard GNU archives with a more standard compliant
tar.

From reading you arcticle, I don't expect that you are interested in a real
comparison at all. Your claims look much like biased and unprovable rants....

If you like to learn more about TAR, and if you really are interested in
understanding the differences, you may read the documentation

ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/star/README.otherbugs
ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/star/STARvsGNUTAR

The star man page from a recent version:

ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/star/alpha

as well as the test scripts on

ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/star/testscripts

After reading the star documentation and after you did run the compliance tests
with your preferred TAR, we may talk again. However, if I see that you continue
to write unprooven and unspecific critics, I will ignore you.....


--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1
schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL: http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> In article <qfftgb.4hh.ln@news.it.uc3m.es>,
> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>> In article <lu7tgb.mlo.ln@news.it.uc3m.es>,
>>> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>>>>In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>>>> This is why it is a good idea to use e.g. 'star'. It gives you a lot more
>>>>
>>>>And being the author of "star" would not give you a biased view of the
>>>>matter?
>>
>>> Everybody is free to compare and to decide for himself.
>>
>>They are. You are not. That's the problem - you announced that star
>>is ...
>>
>>> Star is the tar implementation with the most features I am aware of and you may
>>
>>And that's something you are NOT free to decide for yourself, because
>>you have an interest.
>>
>>> be shure that I compare star to all other known tar implementaions.
>>
>>No, we may not be sure. We may especially not be sure that you do so in
>>an unbiased way, since in particular you seem unaware of the possibility
>>that you may not. In any case, WHAT other tar implementations?
>>
>>Please do not repeat your "comparisons" without announcing that you are
>>the author of the thing you are comparing.

> Looks like you are not even willing to look at star and believe from your belly

I looked at it. That's how *I* checked that you were the author,
something you still seem unwilling to say in public!


> that another implementation is better. GNU tar is the tar that creates the most
> problems because it is not standard compliant and thus gives people problems

What standard would you like to comply to? You seem to have chosen one
taht doesn't exist yet (as I recall)! Personally, I prefer standards
not to change.

> that like to extract non standard GNU archives with a more standard compliant

What kind of problem? Please be specific.

> From reading you arcticle, I don't expect that you are interested in a real
> comparison at all. Your claims look much like biased and unprovable rants....

No, yours do. I don't claim anything. In fact, I've never claimed
anything about tar! Except that you are the author, which is a matter
of record and not a claim.

> If you like to learn more about TAR, and if you really are interested in
> understanding the differences, you may read the documentation

No I may not. If you have something to say, say it.

> After reading the star documentation and after you did run the compliance tests
> with your preferred TAR, we may talk again. However, if I see that you continue
> to write unprooven and unspecific critics, I will ignore you.....

I have made no criticisim, except of YOU. Desist from advertising your
own work without acknowledging that it is yours.

And go jump in a lake too, please. I have no intention of looking at
"s-tar". Gnu tar works for me, mostly.

Peter

In article <qmttgb.1b.ln@news.it.uc3m.es>,
Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
[Lots of flames snipped]

Is it really necessary for every thread in a Unix newsgroup that mentions
tar to degenerate into a flamewar about gtar vs. star?

--
Barry Margolin, barry.margolin@level3.com
Level(3), Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.

In article <AOwYa.12$7R.5@news.level3.com>,
Barry Margolin <barry.margolin@level3.com> wrote:
>Is it really necessary for every thread in a Unix newsgroup that mentions
>tar to degenerate into a flamewar about gtar vs. star?

I'm quite interested in whether free software providers need to stipulate
projects they own or contribute towards when promoting that software
as solutions to problems posted on Usenet.

I'm not familiar with this convention/netiquette, but you've been
around Usenet longer than me, so I'd value your opinion.

John
groenveld@acm.org

In comp.os.linux.misc Barry Margolin <barry.margolin@level3.com> wrote:
> In article <qmttgb.1b.ln@news.it.uc3m.es>,
> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> [Lots of flames snipped]

> Is it really necessary for every thread in a Unix newsgroup that mentions
> tar to degenerate into a flamewar about gtar vs. star?

I don't think we're there yet. I'm just complaining at the author of
star for him recommending and advising use of star without mentioning
that he's the author, and therefore has an interest! I couldn't care
less about gtar. Or star. I care about people who act like that,
whatever they act like that about.

Peter

In article <bguatq$bg2$1@ewok.cse.psu.edu>,
John D Groenveld <groenvel@cse.psu.edu> wrote:
>In article <AOwYa.12$7R.5@news.level3.com>,
>Barry Margolin <barry.margolin@level3.com> wrote:
>>Is it really necessary for every thread in a Unix newsgroup that mentions
>>tar to degenerate into a flamewar about gtar vs. star?
>
>I'm quite interested in whether free software providers need to stipulate
>projects they own or contribute towards when promoting that software
>as solutions to problems posted on Usenet.
>
>I'm not familiar with this convention/netiquette, but you've been
>around Usenet longer than me, so I'd value your opinion.

I've never heard of such an expectation. If the software solves the
problem, who cares what the poster's relationship is? Such disclaimers
have never been common practice (although the reverse has been seen --
people occasionally write something like "I have no vested interest, I'm
just a satisfied customer" so that they won't appear to be self-serving or
assumed to be exagerating its benefits).

However, it's considered spam when people promote their software as if it's
a solution to the problem, when in fact it's not really related at all.
And it's extremely obnoxious for a vendor to post a fake customer
testimonial (as in "I just tried XXX, and it's great -- I recommend you all
got to www.vendor.com and download it").

--
Barry Margolin, barry.margolin@level3.com
Level(3), Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.

In comp.os.linux.misc Barry Margolin <barry.margolin@level3.com> wrote:
> In article <bguatq$bg2$1@ewok.cse.psu.edu>,
> John D Groenveld <groenvel@cse.psu.edu> wrote:
>>In article <AOwYa.12$7R.5@news.level3.com>,
>>Barry Margolin <barry.margolin@level3.com> wrote:
>>>Is it really necessary for every thread in a Unix newsgroup that mentions
>>>tar to degenerate into a flamewar about gtar vs. star?
>>
>>I'm quite interested in whether free software providers need to stipulate
>>projects they own or contribute towards when promoting that software
>>as solutions to problems posted on Usenet.
>>
>>I'm not familiar with this convention/netiquette, but you've been
>>around Usenet longer than me, so I'd value your opinion.

> I've never heard of such an expectation. If the software solves the

I have! People who offer recommendations on usenet, as in any walk of
life whatsoever, are expected to declare an interest if they have one.
That's simple honesty.

Hey, buy Breuer's invetment bonds! They;re fantastic! Much better than
those goverment things, which only adhere to last years standards, not
next years!

</example>

> problem, who cares what the poster's relationship is? Such disclaimers

Of course one cares what the relationship is. It influences ones
evaluation of the advice. As in how much salt to take it with.

> have never been common practice (although the reverse has been seen --
> people occasionally write something like "I have no vested interest, I'm
> just a satisfied customer" so that they won't appear to be self-serving or
> assumed to be exagerating its benefits).

> However, it's considered spam when people promote their software as if it's
> a solution to the problem, when in fact it's not really related at all.
> And it's extremely obnoxious for a vendor to post a fake customer
> testimonial (as in "I just tried XXX, and it's great -- I recommend you all
> got to www.vendor.com and download it").

But if the author recommends his own work and doesn't care to say that
he's the author, then he is posing as a customer, and so we indeed have
a "fake customer testimonial". He says that it's great, washes better
than y, and tells us to go and download it from such and such a place.
Omitting to say that he's the vendor, not the customer.

Peter