Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness

2004-04-19 Thread Sergey Poznyakoff
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Also, there are moves to change the pax format (so far in an > upward-compatible way, but you never know). Perhaps you should > mention that "tar-pax" is intended to be the most recent version of > the pax interchange format, not necessarily the 2001 v

Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness

2004-04-19 Thread Sergey Poznyakoff
Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] selects the new pax format defined by POSIX > +1003.1-2001. It supports filenames with up to 65535 characters. POSIX 1003.1-2001 specification does not impose any limit on lengths of files stored in PAX interchange format. Rega

Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness

2004-04-18 Thread Sergey Poznyakoff
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Given all the hassles that will accompany any change, perhaps we > should give the maintainer a more gradual upgrade path. > > For example, we could add an automake macro AM_TAR_FORMAT. [...] That's a nice idea. I'd vote for it. > I'd put cpio last on th

Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness

2004-04-18 Thread Sergey Poznyakoff
Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I didn't realise it supported generating tar files. For the cpio I > have (GNU cpio version 2.5): > >ustar The POSIX.1 tar format. Also recognizes GNU tar archives, > which are similar but not identical. > > How does this differ from "tar

Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness

2004-04-18 Thread Sergey Poznyakoff
Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sergey> able to produce correct 'ustar' archives. Whatever > Sergey> options you give to previous versions of GNU tar, the > Sergey> produced archives will deviate from the standard. > > Ouch! Is that a `will always deviate' or a `can deviate

Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness

2004-04-16 Thread Sergey Poznyakoff
Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think it's the only place where I've read this. Has anybody > seen such implementation? I'm tempted to think we shouldn't > care. Agreed. Regards, Sergey

Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness

2004-04-16 Thread Sergey Poznyakoff
Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On second though, shouldn't we try to use pax first? tar is no > longer a POSIX requirement, right? Right, but I'd say it's too early to relay on pax. > Also do we really need to try `-o'? No, we do not. > Besides GNU tar, is there some tar i

Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness

2004-04-16 Thread Sergey Poznyakoff
Hello, Actually I was planning to address this issue a bit later, since I do not have a solution for automake yet. Anyway: Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Roger> + $(AMTAR) chf - $(distdir) --format=posix | GZIP=$(GZIP_ENV) gzip -c > >$(distdir).tar.gz > [...] > > Sorry