| 1 |
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Monday 07 November 2005 19:22, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>Sure. What's the point? What benefit does one tar have over the other? |
| 5 |
>>How is bsdtar more capable in any situation than gnutar? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> the first point is not to change the default behavior of an userland, so |
| 8 |
> FreeBSD should have FreeBSD tar. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> About the difference between the two, I still prefer bsdtar because is a |
| 11 |
> little more cleaner (imho), it does not use gzip/bzip2 in pipe to |
| 12 |
> extract .tar.gz and .tar.bz2 archives, and it extracts zip files and iso |
| 13 |
> files. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> And it's a choice people can do, default users won't see any difference |
| 16 |
> anyway. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
So why is a virtual needed? Don't the two packages co-exist? |
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives