[EMAIL PROTECTED] claimed:
> >And before you get too upset about tar versus gnutar versus standards and the
> >world, please realise that you wrote your own makefile system that you prefer
> >to anyone elses, and I'm quite certain that your makefile system isn't an ISO
> >standard. So how about giving other people the slack you give yourself and
> >let them do what they want how they want?
>
> My makefilesystem is _not_ ISO as the method proposed by FSF is.
> .... but my makefilesystem is better than the method proposed by FSF so why
> stop progress?
So when you ignore standrads it's progress and when GNU tar does it,
it's poor implementation?
> For the question of best portability:
>
> As GNU tar archives are not POSIX compliant, I see no argument that would stand
> to justify using GNU tar as the tool of your choice to create highest
> portability. Contrawise: all arguments listes in the last days are arguments
> to use star instead of GNU tar. Star produces (in default mode) archives that
> are readable with all tar implementations except GNUtar.
And gtar is readable in all implementatins, so we should use star so
that it won't work properly on the most common UNIX distribution?
> I am trying to get some feedback for the new cdrecord features for some
> days and it seems that all member in this mailing list are more interested
> in repeating false arguments pro GNUtar and against star than in cdrecord.
Then why don't you let the threads die? Every few weeks you complain
about gtar, or Linux sg, or some other Linux thing. We've heard, we
don't agree, why don't you drop the political hogwash added to the
surviving technical threads?
--
-bill davidsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
