Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 11:16:39 -0700 From: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> To: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, Tim Kientzle <kientzle@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org 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 ... Message-ID: <483AFE87.6020103@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20080526172717.GA93432@freebsd.org> References: <200805261715.m4QHFZUK070554@repoman.freebsd.org> <20080526172717.GA93432@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Roman Divacky wrote: >> Initial commit of bsdcpio 0.9.11b. > > great! thnx a lot. > > can you please summarize what are the advantages/differences from gnu-cpio? The BSD license is one advantage; but the fact that this 1766 lines of C code compared to gnu-cpio's 6994 lines of C code is in my opinion far more important (the difference being largely because bsdcpio uses libarchive, of course). Other benefits include bsdcpio being cleaner code (I had to look at the cpio code once for a security advisory... I nearly went blind), being newer code (at least from the perspective of security, pre-2000 code is generally less trustworthy -- people were simply less aware of security in the past), and having an active FreeBSD maintainer. I'm looking forward to when we can remove both GNU cpio and our current pax implementation from the tree, and have libarchive be the One True Archiver which is exposed to userland via three different front-ends. Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?483AFE87.6020103>