Subject: Re: FYI: upgrading GNU tar
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Takahiro Kambe <email@example.com>
Date: 10/14/2002 01:22:02
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
> > secure it.
> 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?
Takahiro Kambe <email@example.com>