Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 14:34:04 +0200 From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@britannica.bec.de> To: cvs-src@freebsd.org 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 ... Message-ID: <20080528123404.GB1177@britannica.bec.de> In-Reply-To: <20080528013528.GA97270@dragon.NUXI.org> References: <200805261715.m4QHFZUK070554@repoman.freebsd.org> <20080526172717.GA93432@freebsd.org> <483AFE87.6020103@freebsd.org> <20080528013528.GA97270@dragon.NUXI.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 06:35:28PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 11:16:39AM -0700, Colin Percival wrote: > > I'm looking forward to when we can remove both GNU cpio and our current > > pax implementation from the tree, > > I don't see a reason to remove pax from the tree. It is already BSDL'ed > and is faster than libarchive based archivers. Please take this a > request to not remove pax. It has also serious limitations in its standard compliance. Have you measured the pax performance and can point to specific workloads for which it is faster? Joerg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080528123404.GB1177>