On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 06:58 -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 09:27:12AM -0400, Coleman Kane wrote: > > 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, > > Please read this as: "Please don't touch pax". It works fine as-is, is > small, is only used by folks that know it exists (many BSD users don't), > is BSDL'ed, pretty much cause no harm or extra work for us, etc... >
Clear. -- Coleman Kane
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
