Re: [Module::Build] Archive::Tar file format

[Jos I. B. <ka...@dw...>]

On 9-jan-04, at 19:01, Ken Williams wrote:

> Let me reiterate that these clients are *NOT* IMO broken.  They 
> implement the TAR spec, at the time of their writing, correctly.
seeing the way the tar header is built up, i'd be terribly surprised if 
the prefix header field didn't exist all along... we can only speculate 
right now why or how it wasn't implemented in some of the other tools.
The proposed @LongLink solutions seems to work for the 2 people on the 
cc list, so i'll try and build a snapshot that behaves accordingly...

> The broken thing seems to be the updated TAR spec, which changed in 
> such a way that any archive that uses the new features won't work with 
> old clients.  That's really a terrible thing to do to a "standard".
yes it is,... especially if it's causing me extra work... ;)

p.s. it's enough to send me every mail /once/ -- putting me both in to: 
and cc: is a bit overkill...

p.p.s ken, could you maybe whitelist this mail address for the mb 
mailing list? getting slightly tired of the 'your message is being held 
for approval' mails..

--

Jos Boumans

	"We are not far from the kind of moral decay that has brought on the 
	fall of other nations and peoples" - Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
	
	CPANPLUS	http://cpanplus.sf.net