James Carlson <[email protected]> wrote: > [Removed OGB-discuss; they likely don't care, and this is certainly off > topic.] > > Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Brian Utterback <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Perhaps it is because there is already a less powerful (but adequate?) > >> tool already integrated that the interest is less. > > > > Isn't spending time on ntegrating less powerful programs a waste of time? > > Please note that integrating star was decided _inside_ Sun even before GNU > > tar > > was added. > > GNU tar is needed for Linux compatibility. Like it or not, there are a > lot of GNU/Linux machines out there, and being able to read and write > their files is pretty much a minimum requirement for a modern OS.
Star implements a GNU tar CLI compatibility mode. Did you ever test this? And star reads back _more_ archives written by GNU tar that the original GNU tar does. So please explaint me for what purpose you need an original GNU tar binary. > pax has a similar argument. Which one? > With all of those, it's unclear to many why anyone would really need yet > another tar. Of course, if someone wants to integrate it anyway, I see > no particular barrier to doing so. There's just no real need, so I can > understand a lack of urgency. I se a lack of significance in what has been done in the past. 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/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
