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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to