Subject: Re: libarchive import
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Christos Zoulas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/18/2007 00:06:52
In article <20070317225428.GA21373@panix.com>,
Thor Lancelot Simon <email@example.com> wrote:
>On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 11:11:25PM +0100, Bernd Ernesti wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 05:44:16PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 05:17:33PM +0100, Juan RP wrote:
>> > > I don't have any objection against libarchive, but I'm not sure
>> > I don't want replace the existing pax-as-tar, that's why I ask whether
>> > we want to have the source in base.
>> Then what would it be used for?
>What he said. Why shouldn't we cause our pax to use this code? I believe
>even Christos isn't opposed to the idea, in principle (I'm sure he'll
>correct me if I remember our discussion of this wrong).
No, I am not opposed to, but we should fix the relevant issues that Joerg
mentioned before we use it for pax, and we should make sure that there are
no other regressions (such as not producing POSIX pax archives, and only
generating ones with GNU extensions).