Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 01:26:16 +0200 From: Bjoern Fischer <bfischer@Techfak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> To: Cyrille Lefevre <cyrille.lefevre@laposte.net> Cc: Lou Katz <lou@metron.com>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Tar broken for large files? Message-ID: <20020517232616.GC60644@no-support.loc> In-Reply-To: <200205170356.g4H3uLxA001620@gits.gits.dyndns.org> References: <20020514201403.A38469@metron.com> <200205170356.g4H3uLxA001620@gits.gits.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 05:56:21AM +0200, Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
> also, how about using pax ?
>
> FYI, for writting, use pax -w -x ustar -f /dev/sa0
> and for reading, use pax -r -pp -f /dev/sa0
IMHO pax(1) is one of the most underestimated archivers in the
UNIX environment.
What about propagating pax(1) and wrap the tar(1) command line
interface into pax for compatibility. Then get rid of the old
hacked up GNU tar version in the base system. If one needs the
features of a decent GNU tar, the port is the proper way in
any event.
All in all there are these 3 options to choose from:
1.) Fix the tar(1) in the base system.
+ minimal changes
- even more hacked up GNU tar in the base system
2.) Import a new fresh GNU tar version into the base system.
+ straight vendor import, less maintenace
- more changes
- GNUisms
3.) Push pax(1) and wrap the tar(1) CLI into it.
+ less redundancy
- someone has to do it
- the tar(1) CLI may not be 100% wrappable into pax(1)
Just some thoughts...
"
Bjorn
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020517232616.GC60644>