On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, grant beattie wrote:

> > I know I mentioned before, but why doesn't pax get registered as a
> > package? Why does it have NO_MTREE?
>
> it's required for bootstrapping, though archivers/pax will generally
> only be built on an already-bootstrapped system, so this should
> probably be addressed.
>
> > And can someone comment on pkg/22693?
> > http://www.NetBSD.org/cgi-bin/query-pr-single.pl?number=22693
> >
> > If GNU_PROGRAM_PREFIX is not set or nothing, pax will overwrite tar and
> > cpio :(
>
> don't set GNU_PROGRAM_PREFIX to nothing? ;-)
>
> I don't have a clean solution to this at the moment, except for
> having the two packages conflict with each other, and I realise this
> isn't ideal...

Does everyone expect to have "tar" be the pax implementation?

Maybe a bsd.pkg.defaults.mk option so gtar-base won't install bin/tar
This should be fine, because it always installs a gtar (right now as a
symlink when no GNU_PROGRAM_PREFIX).

And a bsd.pkg.defaults.mk option so gcpio is installed as gcpio regardless
of GNU_PROGRAM_PREFIX.

Then with those two options, I will use tar and cpio and really be using
pax-as-tar and pax-as-cpio which is great for me.

Anyways, I say that gtar-base always install gtar as gtar and never as
"tar".

And then allow pax to package so I can have tar and cpio.

> > (My temp workaround instead of continueing to patch pax, is to use my
> > wip/opax.)
>
> what are the advantages of this? (I haven't looked at the pkg)

No advantage. It used to work for me. But it doesn't have -O and I built
it because I was having problems with pax before that are now fixed.

   Jeremy C. Reed
   http://bsd.reedmedia.net/