Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!ames!pacbell!sorinc!magik From: magik@sorinc.UUCP (Darrin A. Hyrup) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: csa & cba postings Message-ID: <9001220743.AA03780@sorinc.UUCP> Date: 22 Jan 90 08:43:01 GMT References: <75826@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <9001181640.AA03664@sorinc.UUCP> Reply-To: magik@sorinc.PacBell.COM (Darrin A. Hyrup) Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga Organization: Yes, I'd like that. Lines: 64 In tadguy@cs.odu.edu (Tad Guy) writes: >magik@sorinc.UUCP (Darrin A. Hyrup) writes: >> I think what Tad should be doing is to post all submissions as .ZUU >> files... > >No can do -- one of the ``rules'' about the sources groups is that the >sources posted must be in a plain-text form (shars qualify). Encoding >them into zoo's would not be appreciated by the backbone cabal (even >including uuencoded binaries isn't really legit). Sources must remain >readable without unusual software... What is the basis for these ``rules''? Until now I've never heard of that restriction being placed on any group. And Zoo isn't exactly unusual software, but if you say so... :-) >> Plus that also makes it easier to handle submitted binary files and >> object code (besides having obvious storage and transfer time >> savings over uncompressed shar files.) > >You're real close to proposing to get rid of the sources group and >going only with the binaries group. It'd make things easier for me, >but I don't think it would pass a vote. I know I woudn't vote for it, >and I think you'd find it'd meet with opposition from those without >Amiga who want to browse the sources postings... I never meant to insinuate that! I personally prefer the sources distributions over the binaries any day. (In fact, at this time, I'm not even carrying the binaries distribution at all, since I carry sources and have both Lattice and Manx here if I need to compile something). If something goes out that doesn't come with sources, I can get it from my net-neighbors. What I meant is that ZOO'ing and uuencoding would make BOTH the sources and binaries groups easier to handle because it would be lowering the amount of transfer time neccessary for the groups, and it would make object/binary files easier to extract from the distributions at the user end. Nothing more. >> (Although my personal preference would be to have uuencoded LHARC >> .LZH files instead of .ZOO files to conserve net bandwidth and save >> transfer times.) > >I have no UNIX LHARC, and I will not download everything to my Amiga >just to package it. Zoo remains the most widespread archiver >available. (I often wish no one had made an Amiga LHARC until after >an UNIX version came out). There is a UNIX LHARC out there. Both the extract-only version, and a full LHARC. Its also my understanding that there is a PKZIP out there for UNIX now as well. So, either of these would be ideal for compression savings. I'll try to dig up the UNIX LHARC sources and mail them off to you soon. What you do with them from there is up to you. :-) > ...tad Best wishes, Darrin Hyrup -- Darrin A. Hyrup // AMIGA Enthusiast rencon!esfenn!dah magik@sorinc.PacBell.COM \X/ & Software Developer pacbell!sorinc!magik ========================================================================== "Speak little and well, if you wish to be considered as possessing merit."