Results 1 to 3 of 3
I've noticed that package managers tend to use bsdtar to unpack their loads. Why is this? What's wrong with good old GNU tar ?...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
- 04-08-2012 #1Linux Engineer
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Location
- Harrow, UK
- Posts
- 1,081
Why are there two forms of tar?
I've noticed that package managers tend to use bsdtar to unpack their loads. Why is this? What's wrong with good old GNU tar?
"I'm just a little old lady; don't try to dazzle me with jargon!"
- 04-09-2012 #2Blackfooted Penguin
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Location
- West Yorks
- Posts
- 4,372
I'm not sure why a Linux distro would choose bsdtar over gnu tar, but in the UNIX world there tends to be several versions of the same tool. In recent times the BSD guys have been trying to replace most of the GNU tools because of the move to GPLv3 licence, which I think (I am not 100% certain) is not always compatible with BSD licenses (BSD licences are more permissive in what you can do with the source code than GPL licences).
- 04-10-2012 #3Super Moderator
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Location
- Nottingham, England
- Posts
- 3,588
Apart from the licensing issues mentioned by daark.child, I believe there are performance issues that are addressed by the BSD version, and my understanding was that there were a few posix-compliance issues a while back with gnu-tar, although they may have been resolved now.
Linux user #126863 - see http://linuxcounter.net/
Reply With Quote 
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
