On Tue, 2018-11-13 at 00:45 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Michał Górny wrote: > > Once tar is used for inner archive format, it is also a natural choice > > for the outer format. If you believe we should use another format, that > > is introduce a second distinct archive format and depend on a second > > tool, you need to have a good justification for it. > > Right, that's a better reason. :) > > > So yes, ar is an option, as well as cpio. In both cases the format is > > simpler (yet obscure), and the files are smaller. But does that justify > > using a second tool that serves the same purpose as tar, given that tar > > works and we need to use it anyway? Even if we skip the fact that ar is > > bundled as part of binutils rather than as stand-alone archiver, we're > > introducing unnecessarily complexity of learning a second tool. > > And both ar(1) and cpio(1) have weird CLI, compared to tar(1). > > cpio is not feasible because of file size limitations (4 GiB IIRC). >
FWICS, ar has a limit of 10 decimal digits, so around 9.3 GiB. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
