On 14/11/2019 04:53, matthew green wrote:
TLDR; libarchive has feature parity with NetBSD pax.

i don't know how you can make this claim.  are you simply
ignoring that others have a problem you haven't seen?

How can you make this claim?
Are you ignoring my very simple request that NetBSD tar should be able to extract modern archives?

I asked this simple question internally:
"Why does this archive give error on extraction using NetBSD?"

and lo the answer was
"Our tar is too old and not maintained. Does libarchive work?"

And verily I answered
"Yes! It does work? Can we fix the standard tar?"

"NOOOO" cameth the answer.

So, I asked the simple question ......
"Can we change the tar from pax to libarchive?"

And verily no-one had any reason to dispute this ..... until now.

people's upgrades are breaking now in ways they never have
before.  that's not feature parity by a long shot.

instead of ignoring the real issues, perhaps you could
argue that bsdtar should actually match the features of
pax-as-tar, and then we can all benefit from the change.

i'm not happy about this change.  i wish that bsdtar was
fixed to not be unfriendly, because it mostly is a better
implementation.  just these edge cases are rather ..
problematic yet these issues are being ignored or
rejected as being irrelevant.

we can do better.  i like christos' patch.  there's some
nuance with the symlink vs security issue, but there is
only clear additional failure cases with the unlink vs
rename issue.

Please do not be blind to my issues either.

From the conversations internally it's basically revert to pax and fuck modern archives or add a warning note to upgraders that chroot symlinks wont work on upgrading.

I myself have been bitten by this on my ERLITE router.
Real men have backups!
Actually I didn't (lesson learned here) and rc.d/nsd and unbound refused to copy over .... so I was able to restore my configs from the chroots.
So here, our rc.d is A WIN FOR UPGRADERS!

Can we not add a note to check links in etc?


Reply via email to