Subject: Re: proposed pax changes (was Big problems with snapshot/20000226, part 1)
To: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Perry E. Metzger <email@example.com>
Date: 03/05/2000 15:38:38
Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> # How's this for a quick hack? The decision to replace gtar with pax on
> # the install media was ill advised and not discussed with anyone. I say
> # we move back.
> ...why? pax is supposed to be the be-all end-all archiver with no GPL
> attached to it. I'd say it's a forward step, albeit we're having
> some problems at the moment.
And we're supposed to cut 1.5 in a few weeks or less.
That means that, although the decision to go forward with pax in the
long run is reasonable, in the short run it is getting in the way. I
say we move back to gtar for 1.5 until we have a pax that does what we
> These are problems that could have been avoided if someone had tested
> the install. Considering that it fails on a 96MB i386 box, I'm not
> at all convinced that someone did.
No, the person who switched on pax did no testing. They broke other
things, too. I'm not very happy with said person.
Perry Metzger email@example.com
"Ask not what your country can force other people to do for you..."