On 20-11-2018 21:33:17 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > The volume label > ---------------- > > The volume label provides an easy way for users to identify the binary > package without dedicated tooling or specific format knowledge. > > The implementations should include a volume label consisting of fixed > string ``gpkg:``, followed by a single space, followed by full package > identifier. However, the implementations must not rely on the volume > label being present or attempt to parse its value when it is. > > Furthermore, since the volume label is included in the .tar archive > as the first member, it provides a magic string at a fixed location > that can be used by tools such as file(1) to easily distinguish Gentoo > binary packages from regular .tar archives.
Just for clarity on this point. Are you proposing that we patch file(1) to print the Volume Header here? file-5.35 seems to not say much but "tar archive" or "POSIX tar archive" for tar-files containing a Volume Header as shown by tar -tv. > Container and archive formats > ----------------------------- > > During the debate, the actual archive formats to use were considered. > The .tar format seemed an obvious choice for the image archive since > it is the only widely deployed archive format that stores all kinds > of file metadata on POSIX systems. However, multiple options for > the outer format has been debated. You mention POSIX, which triggered me. I think it would be good to specify which tar format to use. POSIX.1-2001/pax format doesn't have a 100/256 char filename length restriction, which is good but it is not (yet) used by default by GNU tar. busybox tar can read pax tars, it seems. Thanks, Fabian -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
