On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 23:52:03 +0400 Yevgeniy Tumanov <zhenya....@gmail.com> wrote: > By the way, I learned a little more about archive formats, and it > seems that pax is the best option because it is specified by POSIX > and is «the most flexible and feature-rich format». GNU tar program > is going to use it by default in the future; it prints warnings about > unknown attributes, but I didn’t get errors on extraction of pax with > it. So why to use gnu-tar format then?
Because we need to support allowing users to recover a system by manually extracting a pbin tarball onto a live FS, which means we need to use a tar format that's both smart enough to handle non-boring files and supported by livecds, rescue images, horribly broken systems etc. Right now that means GNU tar. Also, being specified by POSIX doesn't necessarily mean "best". Quite often it means "has fewest features". Portability by lowest common denominator isn't really portability at all. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ paludis-user mailing list paludis-user@lists.pioto.org http://lists.pioto.org/mailman/listinfo/paludis-user
