Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!amdcad!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!tektronix!percival!parsely!agora!rickc
From: rickc@agora.UUCP (Rick Coates)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: ZOO vs PKARC (problems with ZOO)
Message-ID: <1109@agora.UUCP>
Date: 14 Aug 88 14:42:07 GMT
References: <3802@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU> <19807@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <3647@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Advanced Solutions, Hillsboro, OR
Lines: 28

In article <3647@bsu-cs.UUCP>, dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
> ...
>      zoo x// archive   -- extract files into correct subdirectories,
> 			  creating subdirectories as needed
>      zoo x.//          -- as above, but create all subdirectories relative
> 			  to current directory
> -- 
> Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  !{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi

I greatly appreciate Mr. Dhesi's efforts (in creating ZOO and moderating
comp.binaries.ibm.pc) but: (there's always one of those... :-)  )

the problem that I have with zoo is the good old CRLF problem between 
DOS and unix.  So, I am still forced to make  a tar file and then 
zoo that.  Note that ARC has this problem, too, plus is far harder to
port than zoo (SO - ZOO is better than ARC).  Incidently, I find zoo
files better than straight tar files to transfer, not because of the
compression, but because of the error checking.  I have had to use an
ethernet connection that dropped blocks on occasion without notice,
and tar does not check that. Why did the creators of the tar format
include _directory_ checksums but not _file_ checksums?


Rick Coates

tektronix!reed!percival!agora!rickc
OR
tektronix!sequent!islabs!ateq!rick