Article View: comp.std.unix
Article #1000Re: tar and cpio
From: Eric S. Raymond
Date: Mon, 11 May 1987 03:39
Date: Mon, 11 May 1987 03:39
20 lines
1488 bytes
1488 bytes
I'd favor leaving in the tar specification *and* adding cpio. That way,
users of a POSIX-conforming system get the best of both. I think tar's
only real advantage is the multi-volume capability, otherwise cpio is much
superior. What would *really* win is a spec for multi-volume cpio (perhaps
P1003.2 should do this).
BTW, I contributed some stuff to one of the draft versions of Section 10
(specifically, the proposal for a multi-volume tar format with the
ability to recover from a missing volume that is also upward-compatible with
the present one), so I feel like I have something of a proprietary interest
in this stuff. Please email me with an update if you don't get enough response
to merit a posting.
---
Eric S. Raymond
UUCP: {{seismo,ihnp4,rutgers}!cbmvax,sdcrdcf!burdvax}!snark!eric
Post: 22 South Warren Avenue, Malvern, PA 19355
Phone: (215)-296-5718
Volume-Number: Volume 11, Number 25
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<8032@ut-sally.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!std-unixReferences:
<8001@ut-sally.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!std-unix From: eric@snark.uucp (Eric S. Raymond) Newsgroups: comp.std.unix Subject: Re: tar and cpio Message-ID: <8032@ut-sally.UUCP> Date: Sun, 10-May-87 23:39:20 EDT Article-I.D.: ut-sally.8032 Posted: Sun May 10 23:39:20 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 16-May-87 04:07:47 EDT References: <8001@ut-sally.UUCP> Sender: std-unix@ut-sally.UUCP Reply-To: eric@snark.uucp Lines: 20 Approved: jsq@sally.utexas.edu (Moderator, John Quarterman)