On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 18:35 -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 11:16:39AM -0700, Colin Percival wrote: > > I'm looking forward to when we can remove both GNU cpio and our current > > pax implementation from the tree, > > I don't see a reason to remove pax from the tree. It is already BSDL'ed > and is faster than libarchive based archivers. Please take this a > request to not remove pax. >
I am reading this as "replace pax with a libarchive-based pax". Correct me if I am wrong, but the couldn't the current pax implementation just be cored and modified to link against libarchive for the archive-handling code? -- Coleman Kane
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part