On 2008-09-17 23:19:14 -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >> 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. > > Why would you say that? Are you saying that the millions of tar files > already out there have recently been rendered no good?
I don't know how many. > The several tar format variants have various limitations such as on file > name length, path name length, UID values, and file size. Research is > required to know which one is "best", and it is not necessarily the most > recent standard version. I'm not saying to use the most recent standard version. But according to the automake manual, it may be a good idea to use ustar instead of V7 (sufficiently old: 1988, standard: POSIX, fewer limitations). Is there somewhere some document that lists various tar implementations and what they support? -- Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
