In message <20021011160703.GC11980@uriel.eclipsed.net>
	on Fri, 11 Oct 2002 12:07:03 -0400,
	gabriel rosenkoetter <gr@eclipsed.net> 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 <taca@back-street.net>