On Monday 07 November 2005 20:38, Alec Joseph Warner wrote:
> So why is a virtual needed? Don't the two packages co-exist?
They do, but at the moment just one can provide /bin/tar for a specific
system.
The idea is to be able to select one of the two, like loggers, crons, and
similar. And just
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Monday 07 November 2005 19:22, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Sure. What's the point? What benefit does one tar have over the other?
How is bsdtar more capable in any situation than gnutar?
the first point is not to change the default behavior of an userland, so
On Monday 07 November 2005 19:22, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Sure. What's the point? What benefit does one tar have over the other?
> How is bsdtar more capable in any situation than gnutar?
the first point is not to change the default behavior of an userland, so
FreeBSD should have FreeBSD tar.
Ab
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
| What I want to hear is if anyone has good reasons to not allowing
| choosing the tar command between the two compatible alternatives (both
| works fine with portage). If nobody has reasons, I'll be back in a
| coup
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ok before going on with the profile changes for Gentoo/*BSD, I'd like
to fix the virtual/tar thing. Just to make the things more clear, of
the current and planned Gentoo/ALT ports, the "tar" command is going
to be provided by two different packa
