Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tar for the base revision

[Tom Lord]

    > From: Samuel Tardieu <address@hidden>

    > Isn't tar a poor choice for storing a base revision? I seem to recall
    > that there is a 100 characters path limit or so in the tar format, is
    > it still the case?

Honestly, I'm not sure where the standards for tar are at these days,
but GNU tar fixed that limit a long time ago and has been relatively
stable in that regard since --- so that's why arch explicitly uses
`GNU tar', not just `tar'.

As nearly as I can tell, there isn't a terrific interesection between
the three sets:

    * archival programs that stick to a credible standard

    * archival programs that are (essentially) universally ported
      or implemented

    * archival programs without stupid, arbitrary limits

GNU tar is a member of the most important 2 out of those three sets,
so that's what we use.

In (standards) theory, `pax' would be a better choice, but it is not a
member of the "universally ported or [correctly] implemented" set.

-t