Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:20:58 -0700 From: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BSDtar performance vs GNUtar (Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/tar Makefile bsdtar.c bsdtar.h bsdtar_platform.h config_freebsd.h getdate.y matching.c read.c tree.c util.c write.c src/usr.bin/tar/test config.sh test-acl.sh test-basic.sh test-deep-dir.sh test-flags.sh test-nodump.sh ...) Message-ID: <45F4AAFA.1020908@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20070312010532.GA21000@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <200703111036.l2BAaha6031394@repoman.freebsd.org> <45F46291.4090209@freebsd.org> <20070312001026.GA20000@xor.obsecurity.org> <45F4A1F4.4060703@freebsd.org> <20070312010532.GA21000@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>... gtar bitch a bit about unknown options (SCHILY.*) ... >> >>bsdtar should probably warn about unknown options as well; >>I'll have to look into that. > > This was an archive created by bsdtar, so they shouldn't have been > unknown to it :) Yes, but the GNU tar folks, in particular, have introduced a bunch of new options just in the last year, so bsdtar is increasingly likely to see options it doesn't know. For example, I should add support for the new GNU tar sparse file format soon. Tim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45F4AAFA.1020908>