[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness
From: |
Sergey Poznyakoff |
Subject: |
Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness |
Date: |
Sun, 18 Apr 2004 18:31:07 +0300 |
Roger Leigh <address@hidden> wrote:
> 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?
No, it isn't. The option --format=posix means POSIX.1-2001 format
(a.k.a. "pax format"), whereas ustar is POSIX.1-1988. The former
is atually a superset of the latter.
Regards,
Sergey
- 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, 2004/04/17
- Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness,
Sergey Poznyakoff <=
Re: [Bug-tar] Re: AMTAR brokenness, Gunnar Ritter, 2004/04/19