Subject: Re: pax-as-tar extract to stdout patch
To: James Chacon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
Date: 06/17/2003 14:25:32
[ On Tuesday, June 17, 2003 at 11:27:32 (-0400), James Chacon wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: pax-as-tar extract to stdout patch
> So what part of POSIX said one can't extend the commands? Oh yeah..it doesn't
> last time I read through the specs.
> It is entirely possible to be standards conforming *and* provide extentions..
Indeed and I don't think anyone is really arguing against extending
POSIX specified interfaces, nor against using those extensions in the
In case it's not clear yet I've only been objecting to the proposed use
of 'tar' in the system build process, i.e. the use of a completely
non-POSIX command, and one that's been explicitly replaced by POSIX
'pax' for a great many extremely good reasons.
I've also been trying to point out the complete silliness of complaining
about the lack of ability to extract a file(s) to stdout in 'pax',
especially in the case of scripted use, and especially in the case of
the NetBSD system build process!
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <email@example.com>