>>> "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
