Hi, Hal and list.
Actually, that's not correct. Just about all versions of tar now handle fairly long filenames, but they all chose different ways to implement it, since there is no office POSIX standard on how to do this for tar. GNU chose one way, and almost every vendor implemented long pathnames in their own way. So GNU tar was chosen as a portable version of tar, in that it's available for almost every platform, and is uniform in the way it handles the long paths. STAR is another program that implemented a portable approach to long paths, but POSIX now says that 'pax' is supposed to replace tar as a portable archive format. In the real world, GNU tar is the defacto standard, and has much better acceptance than pax. If I recall, the author of star has a hisory of the problem on his site. Hope this helps explain the situation, --Carl Hal DeVore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@hdevore-013.bmc.com on 10/04/2001 04:09:18 PM Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: Subject: Re: XercesDef.hpp > It's possible that you have been bit by the dreaded GNUtar bug It's not a bug. Or it's not a bug in GNU tar. Back in ancient times some(?) UNIXen only allowed filenames to be a total of 14 characters. The original tar has no provisions for names longer than that. GNU tar allows long names. Old versions of tar choke on that as input. --Hal --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
