Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: How does arch/tla handle encodings?

[Esben Mose Hansen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Saturday 28 August 2004 15:54, you wrote:
> > Either copied over from the original file, or lost, dependent on the
> > editor. Did I mention 2) above? I do not think, however, that this is tla
> > (or arch)'s problem. Thus, I propose to ignore this bit.
>
> You are right. It's not arch's problem and it will actualy get settled
> quite fast once EA interface settles down.

Good! :)

>
> > > Things that are thigs tightly coupled with file's contents should
> > > better be part of the contents. You want cat pass them and cat, by
> > > desingn, does not, and have no way to, pass extended attributes around.
> > > Extended attributes may be used, but as a last resort where nothing
> > > else is possible, not as a standard.
> > >
> > :) Some will not agree with you. Some will. I could write a long text
> > : about
> >
> > why, where and how you are wrong, but I find this irrelevant in this
> > context.
>
> Yes. There are reasons for both ways. And in fact, there are probably
> situations where one or other is better. So I really think neither
> should be forced upon applications and users.

We are in agreement here :)

>
> > More interestingly, do you disagree about 5) above? Should tla handle EA
> > "sanely", or simply throw them away? THAT is the interesting discussion
> > in this forum. I, for one, believe EAs are here to stay. The support for
> > them are slowly trickling up&down the toolchains. I would think i prudent
> > to at least consider how tla and arch should handle this.
>
> I actualy agree with 5. EA's are reality, so tla should support them.
> I however think that:
> 1) The interface has to settle down a bit first (it's likely the xattr
>    interface will be obsoleted by file-directory hybrids)
> 2) GNU tar has to support them first (may be it does, but I don't know
>    about it).

1) would be reiser4, right? No point in coding something that will be changed, 
I suppose.  And I can understand that 2) is neccessary.

Well, that seems to settle it for now. Perhaps we should create a bug to track 
this issue? Something like "tla should support extended attributes (EA)" and 
leave it at that.

- -- 
regards, Esben

Homepage: http://www.mosehansen.dk
Signature fingerprint at http://www.mosehansen.dk/about
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBML8Jrfnftt13wXIRApeQAJ0QRRlzqx8CPogJeWYolNwSNwrBPwCcCrii
ajO1sTlkYm5hZa3u0qxuXMU=
=nO4e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----