Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 22:31:54 -0500 From: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> To: Archie Cobbs <archie@dellroad.org> Cc: Dan Moschuk <dan@FreeBSD.ORG>, Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Package system flaws? Message-ID: <20020710033154.GD8625@dan.emsphone.com> In-Reply-To: <200207100310.g6A3AZB23117@arch20m.dellroad.org> References: <20020707153457.GA1086@scoobysnax.jaded.net> <200207100310.g6A3AZB23117@arch20m.dellroad.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In the last episode (Jul 09), Archie Cobbs said: > 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. Tar handles hardlinks just fine. -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020710033154.GD8625>