[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness
From: |
Roger Leigh |
Subject: |
Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness |
Date: |
Sat, 17 Apr 2004 20:39:20 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) |
Ralph Schleicher <address@hidden> writes:
> Roger Leigh <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> I'm using the patch I posted. If and when anyone complains, I'll
>> instruct them to build and install the latest GNU tar (or build it for
>> them). I require the functionality for long pathnames, and I don't
>> want to have to support broken tools. For my needs, 99 chars is not
>> at all sufficient.
>
> Have you ever considered using 'cpio -H ustar' instead of tar?
I didn't realise it supported generating tar files. For the cpio I
have (GNU cpio version 2.5):
ustar The POSIX.1 tar format. Also recognizes GNU tar archives,
which are similar but not identical.
How does this differ from "tar --format=posix". Isn't the POSIX tar
format for the current GNU tar now the same thing?
--
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.
- Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness, (continued)
Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness, Sergey Poznyakoff, 2004/04/16
- Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness, Alexandre Duret-Lutz, 2004/04/16
- Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness, Sergey Poznyakoff, 2004/04/16
- Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/04/16
- Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness, Roger Leigh, 2004/04/16
- Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness, Ralph Schleicher, 2004/04/17
- Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness,
Roger Leigh <=
- Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness, Sergey Poznyakoff, 2004/04/18
Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness, Gunnar Ritter, 2004/04/19