On 14 Dec 2021 11:33, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 12/13/21 21:56, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > for automake, the limitations in the default v7 catch people off guard (like > > filename limits). > > This is a good reason to switch formats. That being said, a downside of > --format=pax is that it gratuitously uses pax extensions when not needed > by the uses of 'tar' that we're talking about. These pax extensions can > cause trouble, as illustrated by Michał's analysis. > > This discussion suggests the need for a new, easy-to use format option, > which is like '-Hpax' except that it omits atime and ctime, and omits > the subseconds part of mtime. Using this format would mean that pax > extensions won't be used unless they're needed (a file with a long name, > a timestamp past the year 2246, etc.) and so the tarball would be more > portable to platforms with older or buggy tarball extractors. > > Maybe we could call this the 'art' format, for "archive reproducible > tarball", so that people could use 'tar -Hart' for it. Like 'ustar', > 'art' format would be a strict subset of 'pax' format so it would be > POSIX-conforming. > > We could introduce the new option in the next release of GNU tar, and > think about changing the default format to it in a later release. > > What do you think?
i like it for automake, and to help pull more of the ecosystem up to pax. -mike
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
