> I doubt if they are as well maintained in linux distros as the GNU
> tool set, particularly in terms of having recent fixes backported into
> the versions carried in enterprise distros.
They are updated pretty much every month.
>> My basic requirement with what I'm doing is to use standard tools and
>> formats so that archives I write today can be readable in 10 years.
>
> I've never had any doubts that current GNU tar would extract archives
> made with it 10+ years ago - in fact I'm fairly sure I've done that.
> Or that I'd be able to obtain a copy of it in the future.
GNU tar .. has its own bugs. Is it really standards compliant?
>> Is the use of Schily tools going to be contrary to my basic requirement?
>> Is that considered a risk for future readability?
>
> It shouldn't matter if you don't use either of the version's
> extensions, and for archiving you probably don't need them. For
> example, star and GNUtar use very different concepts for incremental
> backups - star is sort of like dump and must work on filesystem
> boundaries where GNUtar's --listed incremental needs a file to hold
> state but will work on arbitrary directories and can span mount
> points.
same sort of deal with star .. but you should go ask the author.
dc
--
--
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x1D936C72FA35B44B
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Dennis Clarke | Solaris and Linux and Open Source |
| dclarke@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | Respect for open standards. |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------+
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
