Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!pcrat!rick From: rick@pcrat.uucp (Rick Richardson) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: Why "shar: Shell Archive (v1.22)" is bad Message-ID: <1989Sep22.005247.11518@pcrat.uucp> Date: 22 Sep 89 00:52:47 GMT References: <1979@prune.bbn.com> <444@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> Reply-To: rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) Organization: PC Research, Inc., Tinton Falls, NJ Lines: 34 In article <444@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <1979@prune.bbn.com>, rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: >| I'm finishing up the "final" release of my cshar tools. This is what > It's my "shar2" tool. >It's a consequence of >splitting files to make equal size archives rather than doing an >aproximation with whole size. OK guys, lets get together so that the next 'shar' coming from whomever, does some much needed things, like: 1) handle automatic compression followed by {uuencoding,btoa'ing} so that those odd bits of binary junk (like icons, etc.) can be automatically handled. 2) handle large (>50) input files. Recently, I had to resort to the ugliness of invoking 1) on a document file that was too large to fit into a 'cshar' archive. The document was palatable to the network, but not to cshar. I think its important that the *.sources moderator realize that there are times when these things are needed. If Rich produces a new shar program as *.sources moderator, it is tantamount to becoming the 'standard'. I know that when I was selecting a shar program among the many available, I picked the current cshar simply because the moderator of *.sources had written it. And then had to hack it to do the binary stuff. I hope the 'standard' covers the needs of the posters. -- Rick Richardson | Looking for FAX software for UNIX ?????? mention PC Research,Inc.| WE'RE SHIPPING your uunet!pcrat!rick| Ask about FaxiX - UNIX Facsimile System (tm) FAX # (201) 389-8963 | Or JetRoff - troff postprocessor for the HP {Laser,Desk}Jet