On Thu, Dec 26, 2002 at 01:21:38PM -0600, Bryan W. Headley wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Dec 26, 2002 at 03:34:48PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Thu, Dec 26, 2002 at 07:01:21PM +1100, bug1@optushome.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 02:03:20 +0100
Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de> wrote:
Not till it begins to emulate GNU tar's default behaviour.
GNU tar should not be seen as the the standard, POSIX should be.
If a standards document goes off into the wild blue yonder and defines
a "standard" that is incompatible with existing practice, then I don't
see why we would have any reason to follow it.
Also, Debian has always taken advantage of the rich set of features
offered by the GNU tools. I see no benefit to limiting ourselves to
the use of POSIX features. I certainly see no a priori reason to
adopt it as the standard to write to. POSIX itself is non-free, and
many of its standardization choices are motivated by compromises for
the sake of proprietary unix systems. I think such systems should be
supplanted, not catered to.
So when is ACL-support for gtar going to be available? I'm a little
miffed to learn that there are other free tar implementations out there
that handle ACLs, while Debian and GNU tar are lagging behind.
Why not ask one of the gtar maintainers? Here's one,
Paul Eggert <eggert@twinsun.com>
And they have an anon email address,
bug-tar@gnu.org
Because I have no particular allegiance to GNU tar, and am perfectly
content to simply install star instead whenever I need tar support for
ACLs? I was merely pointing out that the support for POSIX long
filenames is NOT the only argument presented in favor of star, nor the
most important one, IMHO.