Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I do not understand your strategy then.
The strategy is to not fix things that aren't broken. Changing the default output format is a big deal. The installer can make that decision now, but we're understandably reluctant to make it for them. Support for POSIX.1-1988 and POSIX.1-2001 formats is not sufficiently tested, and there are enough real-world "tar" installations out there right now which will have problems with them (e.g., in the area of long file names), that it's not reasonable (yet) to change the default. Personally, I think we shouldn't bother making POSIX.1-1988 the default format; we should go straight to POSIX.1-2001. But this can't be done right now, since the world isn't ready yet. In the meantime we can stick with the current default; there's no point inflicting two major changes on our users, if we can just as easily get by with just one major change (in GNU tar 2.0, say). Also, to help with the transition, I suggest that the default format for the GNU "pax" command (when it is available) be the POSIX.1-2001 format. Since "pax" is new (to the GNU implementation, anyway), and is rarely used in any event, it will be a good guinea pig. We can then think about changing the default for "tar" if our experience with "pax" is positive. >I was in hope that it should be possible to have an unbiased discussion Sure, but inflammatory language like "If backwards compatibility is no longer an issue for GNU tar...." does not contribute to an unbiased discussion. Obviously archive format compatbility is a major issue for GNU tar. Let's not be silly about this. _______________________________________________ Bug-tar mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-tar
