| 1 |
On Tue, 2018-11-13 at 00:45 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> > > > > > On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Once tar is used for inner archive format, it is also a natural choice |
| 4 |
> > for the outer format. If you believe we should use another format, that |
| 5 |
> > is introduce a second distinct archive format and depend on a second |
| 6 |
> > tool, you need to have a good justification for it. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Right, that's a better reason. :) |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> > So yes, ar is an option, as well as cpio. In both cases the format is |
| 11 |
> > simpler (yet obscure), and the files are smaller. But does that justify |
| 12 |
> > using a second tool that serves the same purpose as tar, given that tar |
| 13 |
> > works and we need to use it anyway? Even if we skip the fact that ar is |
| 14 |
> > bundled as part of binutils rather than as stand-alone archiver, we're |
| 15 |
> > introducing unnecessarily complexity of learning a second tool. |
| 16 |
> > And both ar(1) and cpio(1) have weird CLI, compared to tar(1). |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> cpio is not feasible because of file size limitations (4 GiB IIRC). |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
FWICS, ar has a limit of 10 decimal digits, so around 9.3 GiB. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Best regards, |
| 25 |
Michał Górny |
Archives