From owner-freebsd-stable Fri May 17 16:53:54 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mailout07.sul.t-online.com (mailout07.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.83]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38FA437B406 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 16:53:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fwd03.sul.t-online.de by mailout07.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 178rXd-0007gT-02; Sat, 18 May 2002 01:53:45 +0200 Received: from no-support.loc (520094253176-0001@[80.130.207.150]) by fmrl03.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 178rXU-0oVm0OC; Sat, 18 May 2002 01:53:36 +0200 Received: from frolic.no-support.loc (localhost.no-support.loc [127.0.0.1]) by no-support.loc (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g4HNQL4v061126; Fri, 17 May 2002 23:26:21 GMT (envelope-from bjoern@frolic.no-support.loc) Received: (from bjoern@localhost) by frolic.no-support.loc (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g4HNQGOQ061123; Sat, 18 May 2002 01:26:16 +0200 (CEST) From: Bjoern Fischer Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 01:26:16 +0200 To: Cyrille Lefevre Cc: Lou Katz , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Tar broken for large files? Message-ID: <20020517232616.GC60644@no-support.loc> References: <20020514201403.A38469@metron.com> <200205170356.g4H3uLxA001620@gits.gits.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200205170356.g4H3uLxA001620@gits.gits.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.99i X-Sender: 520094253176-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 05:56:21AM +0200, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > also, how about using pax ? > > FYI, for writting, use pax -w -x ustar -f /dev/sa0 > and for reading, use pax -r -pp -f /dev/sa0 IMHO pax(1) is one of the most underestimated archivers in the UNIX environment. What about propagating pax(1) and wrap the tar(1) command line interface into pax for compatibility. Then get rid of the old hacked up GNU tar version in the base system. If one needs the features of a decent GNU tar, the port is the proper way in any event. All in all there are these 3 options to choose from: 1.) Fix the tar(1) in the base system. + minimal changes - even more hacked up GNU tar in the base system 2.) Import a new fresh GNU tar version into the base system. + straight vendor import, less maintenace - more changes - GNUisms 3.) Push pax(1) and wrap the tar(1) CLI into it. + less redundancy - someone has to do it - the tar(1) CLI may not be 100% wrappable into pax(1) Just some thoughts... " Bjorn To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message