🚀 go-pugleaf

From: ka@hropus.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist)

> [ We are discussing standardizing a data interchange/archive format
> in a standard that its authors explicitly wanted to be implementable
> on hosted, i.e., non-UNIX-based, systems.  The inclusion of inode
> numbers is a problem for such implementations, especially when it
> is not necessary, as demonstrated by the tar format.  -mod ]

Several people have suggested that tar's method of handling links is
better than cpio's.  After looking at the tar format, I wondered how
tar could possibly handle links correctly.   A quick experiment showed
that it doesn't.  Try the following:

	> file1
	ln file1 file2
	tar -cf archive file1 file2
	rm file1 file2
	tar -xf archive file2

The second tar command will fail because tar will simply try to create
a link from file1 to file2, but since I only requested that file2 be
extracted file1 does not exist.

I claim that this is a bug in the tar archive format rather than just
the tar program.  Consider what tar must do to function correctly.  Tar
could remember the location of file1 and lseek to it in this particular
example, but in general the input to tar is not a regular file and thus
may not be seekable.  The best bug fix that I could come up with is to
to make tar write the contents of all files that it does not extract
to a temporary file.  This is unsatisfactory because a user who tried
to extract a single file from a 32 megabyte tape would almost certainly
run out of disk space.

So it seems to me that tar cannot be made to handle links correctly
unless the tar archive format is changed.  The cpio format, on the other
hand, allows links to be handled correctly.  The fact that cpio includes
inode numbers is not all that major a problem for non-UNIX based systems.
Since the only thing the inode numbers are used for is resolving links,
a system which does not support (non-symbolic) links can leave garbage
in the inode field when writing tapes.  A system which does have links
but does not have inode numbers can use a sequence number in place of
the inode number.

I recognize that users will very rarely encounter this bug in tar, but
I still view it as a serious problem in a *standard*.  The question is
not whether this bug in tar desperately needs to be fixed (which is
doesn't), but whether it is reasonable to expect vendors selling cpio
to deliberately introduce a bug into cpio.  Unless someone can suggest
a good way to make cpio use the tar format and still work correctly,
vendors will have to do just that to be compatible with the new standard.


I wonder if there is still any chance of a new interchange format that
corrected the deficiencies of both cpio and tar being accepted as the
standard.  Assuming someone could be found to write a public domain
implementation of the new format, would that be sufficient to make it
a reasonable alternative to the existing implementations?
				Kenneth Almquist

Volume-Number: Volume 11, Number 66