>>> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Paul> Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> How about this scheme: Paul> In the light of later discussion, how about this scheme instead? Paul> Use the first of the following commands that works: Paul> tar --format=ustar Paul> tar Paul> pax -x ustar This looks satisfactory when GNU tar 1.13.93 is installed, or when GNU tar is not installed. However, on most GNU/Linux setups, which have GNU tar 1.13.25 installed, my understanding is that will cause GNU-tarballs to be produced. What if we try hard not to use such old GNU tar versions? Use `tar --format=ustar' if possible. If `tar' is GNU's: Use `pax -x ustar' if that works, or fall back to plain `tar'. Otherwise Use plain `tar', or fall back to `pax -x ustar'. [...] Paul> The "tar" command has never been a POSIX requirement. However, "pax" Paul> has never caught on, for various reasons, and it hasn't been Paul> road-tested as much as "tar" has. It makes sense to use "pax" if Paul> "tar" is not available, but I wouldn't make "pax" my first choice. I trust you. However my impression from Sergey comments is that older GNU tar versions should not be a choice at all when it comes to creating ustar archives :( What about Ralph's `cpio -H ustar' suggestion? I've never used cpio. It looks like the -H option is non-standard, but is supported by many implementations. Probably this is even less exercised than `pax -x ustar'. Paul> Many tar implementations have trouble with path names Paul> longer than 99 bytes. This includes the current GNU tar Paul> official latest non-alpha release (which is buggy in this Paul> area). It would be reasonable to add an automake option Paul> that checks for longer-than-99-byte file names, for Paul> people who are worried about such things. I agree. -- Alexandre Duret-Lutz