[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Incorrect information in the manual about the tar-v7 option

From: Vincent Lefevre
Subject: Re: Incorrect information in the manual about the tar-v7 option
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 02:23:58 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18-vl-r23999 (2008-09-11)

On 2008-09-17 22:45:15 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Vincent Lefevre wrote on Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 06:09:43PM CEST:
> > Shouldn't tar-ustar be the default instead of tar-v7?
> I'm not an expert on tar implementations and their issues,
> and what would be a good default nowadays.
> Help?  I Cc:ed a couple of people knowledgeable about tar history,
> and the automake list.  The question how far autotools should cater
> to limitations of new and open source software like BusyBox is quite
> a difficult one to answer in general, to me.  Should autotools add even
> more workarounds, or should rather simply BusyBox be fixed?  Do added
> workarounds here remove the incentive to fix the buggy software there?

I'd say that old, limited, non-standard formats are likely to be less
tested than current ones, thus they are more likely to have problems
with new tools.

Vincent Lefèvre <address@hidden> - Web: <>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]