[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness
From: |
Sergey Poznyakoff |
Subject: |
Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness |
Date: |
Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:27:15 +0300 |
Hello,
Actually I was planning to address this issue a bit later, since I
do not have a solution for automake yet. Anyway:
Alexandre Duret-Lutz <address@hidden> wrote:
> Roger> + $(AMTAR) chf - $(distdir) --format=posix | GZIP=$(GZIP_ENV)
> gzip -c >$(distdir).tar.gz
> [...]
>
> Sorry for the late comment. I can see at least three reasons
> against this patch:
I agree with all three. The format used for distribution tarballs should
be a reasonably old one, so that any existing version of tar be able to
cope with it.
On the other hand, let me notice that the current practice of using
(so called) V7 format for make dist falls within the first reason you
mentioned:
> The --format=posix options is a GNU Tar option, which means `make dist'
> can no longer be run with other make implementations. Automake makefiles
> should be portable and this breaks it.
The -o option used by automake is as well a GNU Tar option, and it
has another meaning for other tar implementations. According to
POSIX specs, -o stands for 'Assign to extracted files the user
and group identifiers of the user running the program', i.e.
it corresponds to GNU tar --no-same-owner option. Let's take as
examples two other tar implementations:
1) Sun tar. Its manpage says:
o Ownership. Assign to extracted files the user and
group identifiers of the user running the program,
rather than those on tarfile.
[...]
2) Star:
-nochown, -o
Do not restore owner and group of files. This may
be used if super user privileges are needed to
overwrite existing files but the
local ownership of the existing files should not change.
Thus, using -o in Makefiles is at best irrelevant to creation of
archives.
Returning to the question which format should be chosen for
distribution tarballs: I would recommend the 'ustar' format.
It also has a limitation on the maximum length of stored pathnames,
but the limitation is 256 characters, which is reasonably large.
Besides, ustar archives can be read by any existing implementation
of tar.
Regards,
Sergey
- Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness, (continued)
- Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness, Alexandre Duret-Lutz, 2004/04/18
- Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness, Eric Sunshine, 2004/04/18
- Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness, Paul Eggert, 2004/04/19
- Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness, Alexandre Duret-Lutz, 2004/04/19
- Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness, Gunnar Ritter, 2004/04/19
- Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness, Alexandre Duret-Lutz, 2004/04/19
- Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness, Sergey Poznyakoff, 2004/04/19
- Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness, Alexandre Duret-Lutz, 2004/04/19
- Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness, Sergey Poznyakoff, 2004/04/19
- Message not available
- Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness, Alexandre Duret-Lutz, 2004/04/19
Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness,
Sergey Poznyakoff <=
- Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness, Alexandre Duret-Lutz, 2004/04/16
- Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness, Sergey Poznyakoff, 2004/04/16
- Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/04/16
- Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness, Roger Leigh, 2004/04/16
- Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness, Ralph Schleicher, 2004/04/17
- Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness, Roger Leigh, 2004/04/17
- Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness, Sergey Poznyakoff, 2004/04/18
Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness, Gunnar Ritter, 2004/04/19