[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#174308: star should become standard tar



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: pgp23ssAYWZik.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: