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

Bug#174308: star should become standard tar



On Fri, Dec 27, 2002 at 12:24:04AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2002 at 02:47:14AM +0100, Alex de Landgraaf wrote:
> > Quoting "Bryan W. Headley" <bwheadley@earthlink.net>:
> > 
> > > >>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
> > > 
> > 
> > Hmmm, is it me, or hasn't there been a GNU tar release this millenium? 
> > on ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/tar, the last release was somewhere in '99.
> > 
> > Now i agree on the "if it works, dont fix it" view carried out here by many, 
> > and Debian should be conservative with making changes that dramatically
> > change the distribution, but do we want to depend on software that isn't being 
> > updated to new changes? otoh I don't see why ACL couldn't be added to GNU tar,
> > it has a --posix parameter that seems like it could be used for it, it just
> > needs to be reimplemented for the current POSIX 'standard' (isn't a standard
> > that what a large group of people use? oh well, nm :o)
> > 
> > My opinion: if people are still working on GNU tar, try to find out why ACL
> > isn't being implemented. If GNU tar really is dead, then it's no use to keep
> > defending it, changing to star (or another clone) should seriously be
> > considered, once it is compatible.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that bug-gnu-utils is publically archived.  Its
> archives might be enlightening.  The verdict was that Paul (I believe
> it was him...) did not see any sufficiently widely-accepted set of
> interfaces for ACLs to begin justifying the tar support.  I also
> believe he invited the person who asked to do certain things to move
> the process along, and nothing ever came of it.  It was within the past
> month or so.

To be more specific:
  http://sources.redhat.com/ml/bug-gnu-utils/2002-12/msg00053.html

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer



Reply to: