>> It appears to be specifying pax's behaviour, not tar's. [...]
> POSIX used to specify tar, long ago, but there were (as I understand
> it) too many incompat variants, so it was dropped.
Not entirely surprising.
> You should have been expecting that as the link you were given ended
> in pax.ht
Date:Sat, 28 Oct 2023 23:32:56 -0400 (EDT)
From:Mouse
Message-ID: <202310290332.xaa23...@stone.rodents-montreal.org>
| It appears to be specifying pax's behaviour, not tar's. Is tar
| specified to use the same format by reference, or is tar not specified
| but
>> So there _is_ a POSIX spec for tarchives? [...]
> https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/pax.html#tag_20_92_13_06
I got that fetched and have been going through it.
It appears to be specifying pax's behaviour, not tar's. Is tar
specified to use the same format by referenc
>> So there _is_ a POSIX spec for tarchives? [...]
> https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/pax.html#tag_20_92_13_06
I'll have to scare up a work machine to fetch that from, since
apparently pubs.opengroup.org is not interested in serving content over
HTTP. But that should be
On Sunday, October 29, 2023 2:29:47 AM CET Mouse wrote:
> > I don't think any one else cares about pre-ustar. Pretty much any
> > reader and writer around uses at least ustar and generally wants to
> > have extended POSIX as well when caring about large files.
>
> So there _is_ a POSIX spec for t
> Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2023 21:29:47 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Mouse
>
> So there _is_ a POSIX spec for tarchives? Is the spec available, or is
> this yet another pay-to-play "standard"? I've gone looking for specs
> for tar before, but each time I have, I've been unable to find anything
> that isn't be
> I don't think any one else cares about pre-ustar. Pretty much any
> reader and writer around uses at least ustar and generally wants to
> have extended POSIX as well when caring about large files.
So there _is_ a POSIX spec for tarchives? Is the spec available, or is
this yet another pay-to-pl
>> (It doesn't help that I haven't managed to find a clear spec for tar
>> format; the closest I've found so far is a description of what pax,
>> in its (supposedly-)tar-compatible mode, is supposed to read/write.)
> All of this can be found in:
> src/external/bsd/libarchive/dist/libarchive/archive
On Sunday, October 29, 2023 12:40:06 AM CEST RVP wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2023, Mouse wrote:
> > I'm having trouble seeing what's responsible, and in particular am
> > wondering whether this is my bug or /bin/tar's bug or what. (It
> > doesn't help that I haven't managed to find a clear spec for ta
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023, Mouse wrote:
I'm having trouble seeing what's responsible, and in particular am
wondering whether this is my bug or /bin/tar's bug or what. (It
doesn't help that I haven't managed to find a clear spec for tar
format; the closest I've found so far is a description of what pa
I ran into an issue with tar, recently, on a NetBSD 9.1 system. I
created a tarball, containing device special files, with my tar and
then extracted it with the system tar. The device special files all
ended up with major and minor numbers 0,0 on extract.
Looking at the tarball, I'm having troub
11 matches
Mail list logo
