On 12/19/21 10:29, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i don't care about extensions, i care that the "gnu" format has known limitations in how it stores paths that "pax" fixes. so if you have an alternative that doesn't have these issues, and has a chance of being widely adopted like "pax",
What limitations are you referring to? So far, you've mentioned file name length, but gnu format doesn't have a problem with long file names, and gnu-format long filenames are better supported than pax-format long filenames.[1]
If we consider only file name length issues, we shouldn't change the default format from gnu to pax. Quite the reverse: if the default were pax, then [1] would be a good argument for changing the default to gnu.
[1] https://mgorny.pl/articles/portability-of-tar-features.html#long-pathnames
