[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness

From: Alexandre Duret-Lutz
Subject: Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness
Date: 16 Apr 2004 18:54:34 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/21.3.50

>>> "Sergey" == Sergey Poznyakoff <address@hidden> writes:


 >> Otherwise use `POSIXLY_CORRECT=1 tar'.  (I'm assuming that
 >> POSIXLY_CORRECT=1 will coerce older tar versions into 
 >> producing ustar format.  Am I wrong, or is there another 
 >> way?)

 Sergey> No, it will not. Previous versions of GNU tar were not
 Sergey> able to produce correct 'ustar' archives. Whatever
 Sergey> options you give to previous versions of GNU tar, the
 Sergey> produced archives will deviate from the standard.

Ouch!  Is that a `will always deviate' or a `can deviate in some
conditions (like -o does)'?

 Sergey> Using -o does not help much, either: if the file list
 Sergey> to be archived contains long filenames or symbolic
 Sergey> links, tar will create GNU extension headers for them,
 Sergey> thus hurting the portability of the resulting archive.

We don't have symbolic links.  Only regular files and non-empty
directories; furthermore ownership is not important.

So as I sees it the question is: in this conditions, will
old-GNU-tar-without-o deviate more from ustar than
old-GNU-tar-with-o deviates from V7?

If the answer is yes, then I guess we must keep using `o' with
older GNU tar versions, and people with long filenames will have
to get a recent tar version if they want portable tarballs.
Otherwise it seems we simply do not need `o'.
Alexandre Duret-Lutz

reply via email to

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