Joerg Schilling wrote: > Darren J Moffat <Darren.Moffat at Sun.COM> wrote: > >> 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 ? > > It's POSIX.1-2001 > > >>> Sun used an undocumented, non-portable and deprecated method for >>> archiving UFS ACLs. >> So what ? Sun's tar isn't your tar. > > So you believe that you may request other people to implement undocumented > features of Sun software? >
No and I didn't say that either. Sun's tar is Sun's tar, yours is yours that's it. For one reason or another Sun has a feature in our tar that isn't covered by a POSIX standard. At the time this work was one the ARC process approved that. >> 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. > > Why did Sun move to somewhere from where it is hard to go to a better and > more standard conforming way although Sun did have the information on how > to do it better in the first attempt? I can't answer that fully but I will point out that it isn't actually our first attempt at storing ACLs in tar archives we have been doing that since Trusted Solaris 1.x and Solaris 2.5.1. IIRC this is just "followon". Sure it would may have been better to do what you did for star and tried to convince Jeff and others to do. I'm not Jeff and neither is anyone else on this mail trail so we can't answer why Jeff didn't do what you wanted him to do in the ZFS project. -- Darren J Moffat
