From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 28 18:20:23 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96405106566C; Wed, 28 May 2008 18:20:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Received: from kientzle.com (h-66-166-149-50.snvacaid.covad.net [66.166.149.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 567118FC1D; Wed, 28 May 2008 18:20:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Received: from [10.0.0.128] (p54.kientzle.com [66.166.149.54]) by kientzle.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m4SIKLtv048604; Wed, 28 May 2008 11:20:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <483DA264.2010009@freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 11:20:20 -0700 From: Tim Kientzle User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20060422 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: obrien@freebsd.org References: <200805261715.m4QHFZUK070554@repoman.freebsd.org> <20080526172717.GA93432@freebsd.org> <483AFE87.6020103@freebsd.org> <20080528013528.GA97270@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <20080528013528.GA97270@dragon.NUXI.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, Roman Divacky , src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, Colin Percival Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/cpio Makefile bsdcpio.1 cmdline.c config_freebsd.h cpio.c cpio.h cpio_platform.h err.c matching.c matching.h pathmatch.c pathmatch.h src/usr.bin/cpio/test Makefile main.c test.h test_0.c test_basic.c test_format_newc.c ... X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 18:20:23 -0000 David O'Brien wrote: > On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 11:16:39AM -0700, Colin Percival wrote: >>I'm looking forward to when we can remove both GNU cpio and >>our current pax implementation from the tree, > > I don't see a reason to remove pax from the tree. It is already > BSDL'ed and is faster than libarchive based archivers. Please > take this as a request to not remove pax. The current pax does have a lot to recommend it. Unfortunately, it is rather out-of-date. In particular, it does not implement the POSIX-2001 'pax interchange format', which is not at all trivial to implement. The 'pax' format is also the basis of new features being developed by a lot of folks, including the new GNU tar sparse file format (which libarchive supports), and ACL support from Joerg Schilling's star (which libarchive supports). As for libarchive performance, I've done a lot of work there in the last year or two; you might be pleasantly surprised. Cheers, Tim