Subject: Re: FYI: upgrading GNU tar
To: Takahiro Kambe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Alex Barclay <email@example.com>
Date: 10/13/2002 09:32:05
Takahiro Kambe wrote:
>In message <20021011160703.GC11980@uriel.eclipsed.net>
> on Fri, 11 Oct 2002 12:07:03 -0400,
> gabriel rosenkoetter <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 01:18:53AM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
>>>Isn't this about the second or maybe even third time such a lame excuse
>>>has been made? If GNU Tar wasn't in the tree there'd be no need to
>>If GNU tar weren't in the tree there'd be no way to do backups
>>across rmt, being as pax doesn't know how to deal with it. To me,
>>that's a complete show-stopper on using pax.
>I'm writing now with my memory. GNU tar is extended to handle longer
>path name; traditional tar was 100 bytes and cpio was 128 bytes.
>Dose IEEE 1003.2's pax support longer file names?
It just completely boggles my mind that _ANY_ archiver would support
less than _POSIX_PATH_MAX. I've just had this problem recently trying to
dump a HP-UX 11.11 system. The system tar fouled up miserably with long
pathnames. When I used gtar everything was just fine.
Just my $0.02 worth