Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:55:30 +0200 (CEST) From: Harti Brandt <harti@freebsd.org> To: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> Cc: Tim Kientzle <tim@kientzle.com> Subject: Re: NEW TAR Message-ID: <20040722095317.U9549@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> In-Reply-To: <20040722074747.GB13943@nagual.pp.ru> References: <40F963D8.6010201@freebsd.org> <20040719060730.GA87697@nagual.pp.ru> <40FC9FC2.8050400@kientzle.com> <20040722071929.GA13591@nagual.pp.ru> <20040722074747.GB13943@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Andrey Chernov wrote: AC>On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 09:30:39AM +0200, Harti Brandt wrote: AC>> (hole data at the end) you get a problem when extracting. The way I see AC>> would be to put the hole data in-line. This is also not without problems. AC> AC>I too. Just store '\0' and then its count. This solution needs some AC>"backslashing"-like detection to prevent archive file grow bigger on short AC>sequences. AC> AC>But because nobody will understand that format, better stick with GNU one, AC>regardless of its inefficiency. People using -S will have some slowdown, AC>but they know what they do. GNU tar is unmaintained for several years now and I see no reason to restrict development because of an unmaintained ancient program. If there is a better format we should implement it (well, Tim I suppose :-) GNU's format as an option. If you prepare an archieve that should be readable by everyone you cannot use sparse format anyway. harti
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040722095317.U9549>