Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!std-unix From: std-unix@uunet.UU.NET (Moderator, John Quarterman) Newsgroups: comp.std.unix Subject: Re: tar vs. cpio Message-ID: <638@uunet.UU.NET> Date: Wed, 15-Jul-87 00:43:41 EDT Article-I.D.: uunet.638 Posted: Wed Jul 15 00:43:41 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 17-Jul-87 01:49:04 EDT Lines: 50 Approved: jsq@uunet.uu.net (Moderator, John Quarterman) Organisation: USENIX Association From: usenix!jsq (John S. Quarterman) A belated report about the Seattle P1003 meeting, regarding section 10. No one proposes non-ASCII cpio format any more. A revised cpio proposal was received. It is in appropriate format for P1003.1, but is still straight System V cpio. The proposer of that proposal has agreed to supply an updated proposal, including optional extensions for symbolic links, contiguous files, and a general method of extension. This is analogous to what is already in Draft 10 about the ustar format. P1003.1 Draft 11 will include the updated cpio proposal in addition to the already-present ustar format. Some notes have been moved from Section 10 into the Rationale. The introductory matter in 10.1 about the user of permission information on extraction of archives has been reworded, mostly to avoid the word "utility" (this is 1003.1, i.e., the programming language interface standard, that we are discussing.) A note is expected from X/OPEN to address the issues raised in my previous note (IEEE 1003.1 N.100, "tar vs. cpio"), and to include some comments about the motivation for the cpio proposals. The cpio proponents have been invited to post that note and the new cpio proposal in this newsgroup. N.100 will appear in the next issue of ;login:, the Newsletter of the USENIX Association. The cpio proponents have been invited to submit equivalent material. There is a possibility that similar articles may appear in the EUUG newsletter. An actual decision on what format(s) will be in the IEEE 1003.1 Full Use Standard is expected at the September meeting in Nashua, New Hampshire. Though, of course, there is still the possibility that it will be determined in actual balloting. [ Note that I am posting this report as the USENIX Institutional Representative to IEEE P1003, not as the moderator. Replies and related submissions are solicited. -mod ] Volume-Number: Volume 11, Number 91