1 |
On 20-11-2018 21:33:17 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> The volume label |
3 |
> ---------------- |
4 |
> |
5 |
> The volume label provides an easy way for users to identify the binary |
6 |
> package without dedicated tooling or specific format knowledge. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> The implementations should include a volume label consisting of fixed |
9 |
> string ``gpkg:``, followed by a single space, followed by full package |
10 |
> identifier. However, the implementations must not rely on the volume |
11 |
> label being present or attempt to parse its value when it is. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Furthermore, since the volume label is included in the .tar archive |
14 |
> as the first member, it provides a magic string at a fixed location |
15 |
> that can be used by tools such as file(1) to easily distinguish Gentoo |
16 |
> binary packages from regular .tar archives. |
17 |
|
18 |
Just for clarity on this point. |
19 |
Are you proposing that we patch file(1) to print the Volume Header here? |
20 |
file-5.35 seems to not say much but "tar archive" or "POSIX tar archive" |
21 |
for tar-files containing a Volume Header as shown by tar -tv. |
22 |
|
23 |
> Container and archive formats |
24 |
> ----------------------------- |
25 |
> |
26 |
> During the debate, the actual archive formats to use were considered. |
27 |
> The .tar format seemed an obvious choice for the image archive since |
28 |
> it is the only widely deployed archive format that stores all kinds |
29 |
> of file metadata on POSIX systems. However, multiple options for |
30 |
> the outer format has been debated. |
31 |
|
32 |
You mention POSIX, which triggered me. I think it would be good to |
33 |
specify which tar format to use. |
34 |
|
35 |
POSIX.1-2001/pax format doesn't have a 100/256 char filename length |
36 |
restriction, which is good but it is not (yet) used by default by GNU |
37 |
tar. busybox tar can read pax tars, it seems. |
38 |
|
39 |
Thanks, |
40 |
Fabian |
41 |
|
42 |
-- |
43 |
Fabian Groffen |
44 |
Gentoo on a different level |