From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 28 12:34:16 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64FD51065673 for ; Wed, 28 May 2008 12:34:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joerg@britannica.bec.de) Received: from www.pkgsrc-box.org (www.ostsee-abc.de [62.206.222.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BE598FC17 for ; Wed, 28 May 2008 12:34:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joerg@britannica.bec.de) Received: from britannica.bec.de (www.pkgsrc-box.org [127.0.0.1]) by www.pkgsrc-box.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2534E506BE for ; Wed, 28 May 2008 12:34:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by britannica.bec.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 12F2C16FB7; Wed, 28 May 2008 14:34:04 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 14:34:04 +0200 From: Joerg Sonnenberger To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20080528123404.GB1177@britannica.bec.de> References: <200805261715.m4QHFZUK070554@repoman.freebsd.org> <20080526172717.GA93432@freebsd.org> <483AFE87.6020103@freebsd.org> <20080528013528.GA97270@dragon.NUXI.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080528013528.GA97270@dragon.NUXI.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) 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-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 12:34:16 -0000 On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 06:35:28PM -0700, 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 a > request to not remove pax. It has also serious limitations in its standard compliance. Have you measured the pax performance and can point to specific workloads for which it is faster? Joerg