From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 26 18:50:45 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C89B9106567B; Mon, 26 May 2008 18:50:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Received: from kientzle.com (h-66-166-149-50.snvacaid.covad.net [66.166.149.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9751A8FC0C; Mon, 26 May 2008 18:50:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Received: from [10.0.0.128] (p54.kientzle.com [66.166.149.54]) by kientzle.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m4QIojtv031845; Mon, 26 May 2008 11:50:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <483B0685.5080606@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 11:50:45 -0700 From: Tim Kientzle User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20060422 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roman Divacky References: <200805261715.m4QHFZUK070554@repoman.freebsd.org> <20080526172717.GA93432@freebsd.org> <483AFE87.6020103@freebsd.org> <483B011D.9000606@freebsd.org> <20080526182854.GA99498@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20080526182854.GA99498@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, Colin Percival Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/cpio Makefile bsdcpio.1 cmdline.c config_freebsd.h cpio.c cpio.h cpio_platform.h err.c matching.c matching.h pathmatch.c pathmatch.h src/usr.bin/cpio/test Makefile main.c test.h test_0.c test_basic.c test_format_newc.c ... X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 18:50:45 -0000 > ... are there any performance comparison done? I've not explicitly compared performance to GNU cpio, but it should be quite competitive. (Some recent tests show bsdtar to be pretty much on par with GNU tar and star performance-wise and bsdcpio is using the exact same libarchive back-end.) If anyone does take the time to compare performance, I'd be very interested in the results. > some exciting features (like format-auto-detection with > bsdtar the other day)? The format auto-detection is fully handled in libarchive so, yes, bsdcpio should have very solid format detection, including automatic handling of archives compressed with compress, gzip, and bzip2. I've also enabled "support_compression_all", so bsdcpio reads every format that libarchive reads. Tim