From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Dec 6 00:41:54 2001
Joerg Schilling writes:
.
STAR Option Description Gnu
tar equiv. Remarks
=== ===
= ===
Joerg Schilling writes:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Dec 6 00:41:54 2001
Joerg Schilling writes:
.
STAR OptionDescription
Gnu tar equiv. Remarks
======
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Dec 3 20:27:24 2001
On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 09:07:03PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
- An idiosyncratic build system.
This is really funny
Please don't waste time on this issue. I can bmake and shoe-horn
anything into our build system.
Right, this is
Joerg Schilling writes:
.
STAR Option Description Gnu
tar equiv. Remarks
=== ===
= ===
.
file=nm,f=nm use 'nm' as tape instead
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Dec 6 00:41:54 2001
.
STAR Option Description Gnu
tar equiv. Remarks
=== ===
= ===
.
file=nm,f=nm use
Jim Bryant wrote:
fergus wrote:
- It doesn't support incremental backups. That isn't a problem in
itself, but it's a feature our GNU tar currently has and people
probably don't want to lose.
I dunno... The entire incremental thing in tar is dependant on NOT using
compression,
On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 03:50:00PM -0500, Brandon D. Valentine wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
- It doesn't support incremental backups. That isn't a problem in
itself, but it's a feature our GNU tar currently has and people
probably don't want to lose.
It's
On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 09:07:03PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
- An idiosyncratic build system.
This is really funny
Please don't waste time on this issue. I can bmake and shoe-horn
anything into our build system.
--
-- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
To Unsubscribe: send mail to
On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, David O'Brien wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 03:50:00PM -0500, Brandon D. Valentine wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
- It doesn't support incremental backups. That isn't a problem in
itself, but it's a feature our GNU tar currently has and people
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 04:12:28PM -0500, Brandon D. Valentine wrote:
I should think it would be pretty
straightforward seeing as there is already a port which has taken care
of any potential build problems.
Why do you think that?? The port builds using gmake and autoconf. Any
On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, David O'Brien wrote:
Why do you think that?? The port builds using gmake and autoconf. Any
in-FreeBSD-tree bits build with Bmake and w/o autoconf. Also the port
has none of the FreeBSD specific changes. If the ports was in the
perfect shape, why do you think the in-tree
Harti Brandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps it makes sense to switch to star instead? The last version is
Posix conform, supports extended headers and ACLs. According to the star
developer (Joerg Schilling) GNU tar is severly broken.
Unfortunately, star has it's own share of problems:
- A
Perhaps it makes sense to switch to star instead? The last version is
Posix conform, supports extended headers and ACLs. According to the star
developer (Joerg Schilling) GNU tar is severly broken.
Unfortunately, star has it's own share of problems:
- A highly idiosyncratic command
From: fergus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Perhaps it makes sense to switch to star instead? The last version is
Posix conform, supports extended headers and ACLs. According to the star
developer (Joerg Schilling) GNU tar is severly broken.
Unfortunately, star has it's own share of problems:
- A
Of course, if you only know GNUtar Star's standard option handling
_may_ look strange. But then why did FreBSD switch to GNUtar instead
of keeping a real tar?
Because there didn't exist a real tar at the time that FreeBSD was
created.
Nate
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Nov 29 21:11:16 2001
Of course, if you only know GNUtar Star's standard option handling
_may_ look strange. But then why did FreBSD switch to GNUtar instead
of keeping a real tar?
Because there didn't exist a real tar at the time that FreeBSD was
created.
Well
Of course, if you only know GNUtar Star's standard option handling
_may_ look strange. But then why did FreBSD switch to GNUtar instead
of keeping a real tar?
Because there didn't exist a real tar at the time that FreeBSD was
created.
Well this is from BSD-4.3:
[ SNIP ]
... And it
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
- It doesn't support incremental backups. That isn't a problem in
itself, but it's a feature our GNU tar currently has and people
probably don't want to lose.
It's a feature that is essential that FreeBSD doesn't lose IMO. Those
of us who
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Nov 29 21:25:58 2001
Of course, if you only know GNUtar Star's standard option handling
_may_ look strange. But then why did FreBSD switch to GNUtar instead
of keeping a real tar?
Because there didn't exist a real tar at the time that FreeBSD was
created.
fergus wrote:
- It doesn't support incremental backups. That isn't a problem in
itself, but it's a feature our GNU tar currently has and people
probably don't want to lose.
I dunno... The entire incremental thing in tar is dependant on NOT using compression,
which IMHO makes it pretty
David O'Brien writes:
On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 02:18:42PM +, Walter C. Pelissero wrote:
How about adding the nodump flag processing in tar?
This would be a *bad* idea. It would diverge our tar even more
than it already is -- which is so bad it isn't trival to update
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Walter C. Pelissero wrote:
WCPDavid O'Brien writes:
WCP On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 02:18:42PM +, Walter C. Pelissero wrote:
WCP How about adding the nodump flag processing in tar?
WCP
WCP This would be a *bad* idea. It would diverge our tar even more
WCP than
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 01:30:25PM +, Walter C. Pelissero wrote:
Does it mean we can't modify the BSD tar because it's already too
different from the GNU tar, but at the same time we don't upgrade to
the new GNU tar because it might require too much work adapting the
old mods to the new
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 02:45:38PM +0100, Harti Brandt wrote:
Perhaps it makes sense to switch to star instead? The last version is
Posix conform, supports extended headers and ACLs. According to the star
developer (Joerg Schilling) GNU tar is severly broken.
Star is GLP'ed software. Thus
On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 02:18:42PM +, Walter C. Pelissero wrote:
How about adding the nodump flag processing in tar?
This would be a *bad* idea. It would diverge our tar even more than it
already is -- which is so bad it isn't trival to update to the latest
version (ours is many years
How about adding the nodump flag processing in tar?
Something like:
--- /usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/tar/create.c Wed Aug 11 09:03:39 1999
+++ create.cWed Nov 21 13:52:54 2001
@@ -817,6 +817,8 @@
strcpy (namebuf + len, d-d_name);
if (f_exclude check_exclude (namebuf
26 matches
Mail list logo
