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