From owner-freebsd-arch  Tue Jul  9 20:15: 4 2002
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id F1F1137B400; Tue,  9 Jul 2002 20:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from InterJet.dellroad.org (adsl-63-194-81-26.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.194.81.26])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 6989B43E42; Tue,  9 Jul 2002 20:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from archie@dellroad.org)
Received: from arch20m.dellroad.org (arch20m.dellroad.org [10.1.1.20])
	by InterJet.dellroad.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA63731;
	Tue, 9 Jul 2002 20:11:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from archie@localhost)
	by arch20m.dellroad.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g6A3AZB23117;
	Tue, 9 Jul 2002 20:10:35 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from archie)
From: Archie Cobbs <archie@dellroad.org>
Message-Id: <200207100310.g6A3AZB23117@arch20m.dellroad.org>
Subject: Re: Package system flaws?
In-Reply-To: <20020707153457.GA1086@scoobysnax.jaded.net> "from Dan Moschuk at
 Jul 7, 2002 11:34:57 am"
To: Dan Moschuk <dan@FreeBSD.ORG>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 20:10:35 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>,
	Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL88 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-arch.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-arch>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-arch>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

Dan Moschuk writes:
> I don't think using an archive format like zip would be a step in the
> right direction.  If the package file format were to be redesigned, I would 
> vote for a custom header prepended to a bziped tarball.

tar has a limitation which I've encountered: suppose you have a port
that installs a man page with lots of references (i.e., hard linked
files with different names with a single underlying file). Then in
tar format, you get the same file copied N times. If we used cpio
instead (for example) then it "knows" how to handle hard links.

So I'd say cpio is better than tar, though something else altogether
might be better than both.

-Archie

__________________________________________________________________________
Archie Cobbs     *     Packet Design     *     http://www.packetdesign.com

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message