Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!tank!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!mcdonald
From: mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Why "shar: Shell Archive  (v1.22)"
Message-ID: <45400009@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 27 Sep 89 14:33:00 GMT
References: <1979@prune.bbn.com>
Lines: 29
Nf-ID: #R:prune.bbn.com:1979:uxe.cso.uiuc.edu:45400009:000:1425
Nf-From: uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!mcdonald    Sep 27 09:33:00 1989


In article <1989Sep25.195540.18104@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, mcdonald@aries.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes:

|  code. Using a UNIX shell is not satisfactory IF the operations
|  cannot be conveniently done by a relatively simple program.
|  This is so people who don't use UNIX can use these files. Binary
|  files should be clearly distinguished from text files. 
Bill davidsen replies:

>  We're talking about comp.sources.unix. Making a compromise in error
>checking to allow non-unix people to use unix sources isn't a really
>good idea. Since every one using unix has /bin/sh it's the unpacker of
>choice. The paranoid can use a chroot script to prevent possible side
>effects. Unpackers are nice, useful, etc, but everybody doesn't have
>one, so common sense dictates that we use something you have.

But not everything posted to comp.sources.unix really IS unix specific!!!
And, even if it is, somebody might want to port it to some more
common system. The old-fashioned "shar" that seems to have been standard
up to now can be undone by relatively simple portable tools. Let's
keep it that way.

Besides- there is another aspect - people seem to post shar files
to other sources groups too. If some new "shar" starts out only in
comp.sources.unix, it might spread like a plague to other groups.
There is no need to compromise anything - just be sure that
what is done in one place can be undone in another.

Doug McDonald