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. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpz63DitkYva.pgp
Description: PGP signature