PLEASE FINALLY FIX YOUR MAILER This is the third time you destroyed the mail address for Mika (Michael Prokop) and this is the third time I had to manually insert the correct address for Mika.
"Pawel Wiecek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Apr 16, 1:19pm, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > You seem to forget that the binaries names are changed so they do not > > > clash > > > with other packages. > > I see no name clashes....please explain! > > Various versions mt and rmt are provided in tar, star and mt-st. None of them > can claim the names mt or rmt. Alternatives system will provide a symlink to > one of them, usually the one from tar. I don't suppose you intend to refer to > the other mt in star's manual, don't you? You are either confused or you write in miracles.... Debian does not provide _THE_ tar command, which is here: http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/cmd/tar/tar.c Debian could include _A_ tar implementation but currently it does not really do so. This is because Debian installs GNU tar (gtar) as "tar". If you have a look at the relevent SUSv2 standard which is here: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xcu/tar.html you will see that GNU tar neither correctly follows the CLI definitions of the standard nor does it write a standard compliant TAR archive format by default. Star is 100% compliant to the SUSv2 tar standard, so it would be a good idea to install a link from /bin/tar to star to get a standard compliant tar on Debian. Anyway: thinking on whether a implementation could "rightfully" use a specific name seems to be a bit wrong.... Unless you provide the original implementation of a program (in which case you would be allowed to talk about _THE_ xxx command), you could only provide one of several clone implementations (_A_ xxx implementation). But thinking this way, you are still wrong when talking about the star man page: The star man page _mentiones_ mt(1) but it does not mention the extended features that are available with the mt(1) implementation that is part of the star distribution. For this reason, the reference to mt(1) is OK unless Debian ships a broken mt command that does not support the basic mt features mentioned in the star man page. The star man page mentiones rmt(1) but it also describes the differences between the avaliablee implementations. There is absolutely no need to change names in the star man page for above reasons..... Also note: Debian would do a favor to it's users if it did deliver the rmt implementation from star as the default. The star rmt implementation is the only implementation that correctly talks to _all_ rmt client implementations and that includes a complete abstraction from platform, cpu and byteorder differences between the server and the client machine. ... [some other missunderstood parts removed] > Are you referring to some problems created by the buildprocess you have > created yourself? > > > The file star_fat.c is _not_ part of the source. If you create it (as you > > No Joerg, *I* did not create it. Your makefiles did. And they did not clean > it. You are wrong: *you* did create a patch that is repsonsible for the fact that your build environment for star uses a broken star_fat.c Please do not try to blame others for problems you caused. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
