Joerg Schilling wrote: > Darren J Moffat <Darren.Moffat at Sun.COM> wrote: > >> Torrey McMahon wrote: >>> I'm lost as well. Is the issue... >>> >>> Why is anyone updating tar at all? >> Because tar needs to backup your ACLs. > > This is no reason for doing it in a nonportable and deprecated way.
Deprecated by whom ? Which ARC case deprecated this from Solaris ? > >>> Why did someone put ZFS acl support in tar? >> They didn't they put NFSv4/ZFS acl support in to tar. >> >>> Why wasn't it documented? >> It is documented, very clearly on the acl(2) man page how this >> works and in several other man pages that work on ACLs. > > Sorry, this is defintely wrong: > > star implements a well documented, portable and POSIX.1-2001 clean > ACL implementation for POSIX draft ACLs that suppoorts various > filesystem types. > > Sun used an undocumented, non-portable and deprecated method for > archiving UFS ACLs. So what ? Sun's tar isn't your tar. > The ZFS team did know about the background before implementing ZFS > ACL support for Sun tar in the same undocumented, nonportable and > deprecated way as done for UFS ACLs. and they chose to do what they did and ARC approved it. You are upset by this and thats fine you have a right to be so. However it doesn't make what Sun choose to do for Solaris wrong it just makes it different to how you would have like to have seen it done. It also doesn't mean we can't move on from where we are, providing that what ever we move to can still read archives created with the existing code base. -- Darren J Moffat
