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