Michael Lawrence <
address@hidden> wrote:
> > > Issuing these commands with 1.23:
> > >
> > > $ touch foo
> > > $ tar czfh foo.tar.gz foo bar
> > > $ tar tzvf foo.tar.gz
> > > -rw-r--r-- larman/larman 0 2011-01-04 15:06 foo
> > > -rw-r--r-- larman/larman 0 2011-01-04 15:06 bar
> > >
> > > That is as expected
> >
> > No doubt you meant that foo should be a symbolic link to tar?
> > (Your example doesn't say.)
> >
> > But in that case, I don't see why you'd expect the behavior
> > described above. If symlinks are being followed, 'tar' should
> > behave the same with 'ln foo bar' as it does with 'ln -s foo bar',
> > which is like this:
> >
> > $ touch foo
> > $ ln foo bar
> > $ tar czfh foo.tar.gz foo bar
> > $ tar tzvf foo.tar.gz
> > -rw-r--r-- eggert/eggert 0 2011-01-05 09:43 foo
> > hrw-r--r-- eggert/eggert 0 2011-01-05 09:43 bar link to foo
> >
> > This behavior is the same for both 1.22 and 1.25 (I just checked).
> > tar 1.22 mishandles it if "ln -s" is used, but 1.25 gets it right.
> >
> >
> Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I was under the impression that the -h option
> dereferences symlinks, so that they become regular files inside the archive.
> Is this not how it is supposed to work?