5 ms·
That seems sensible to me, what else would you expect?
by master-litty 8y ago
That seems sensible to me, what else would you expect?
- AdmiralAsshat 8y agoI expect that they should preserve the ownership and permissions of the original file if I tell it to.
- rakoo 8y agoHow can it have the same owner if it's a different machine, and users aren't the same ?
- spookthesunset 8y agoDo tarballs store the user/group names as strings or do they store the uid/gid instead? It is one of the goofy things about Unix systems is most tools speak uid/gid and woah is you if two machines on the network have “bob” only as different uid’s. Not entirely sure if windows has the same problem as to be honest if you use active directory most of that stuff is auto-magic. My hunch is that going with the ID vs. the “friendly name” has a bunch of trade offs and whichever you pick will come with serious drawbacks.
- saulrh 8y agoI feel you're on the right track with that hunch - Zooko's triangle should apply in some way.
- justincormack 8y agoThey can do either - traditional tar formats have uid as a number, but the newer pax format has both numeric and named values.
- Hello71 8y agoin fact, names are the default. "--numeric-owner" must be passed to use numeric values.
- fapjacks 8y agoHeh I think you meant "woe is you" although what you've got is actually rather delightful.
- icholy 8y agoMagic ... obviously
- jolmg 8y agoHow can a normal user create files owned by another user? If tar allowed that, you could write any file with any permission and any ownership anywhere by first crafting a tar file of those files and then extracting them. It'd render the file permissions and ownership system completely moot. EDIT: To get the effect you want, run tar as root. That's required to ensure you have the permission to override the DAC system, first.