Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!sunic!erbe.se!prc
From: prc@erbe.se (Robert Claeson)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: tar or cpio, which is better?
Message-ID: <1990Nov16.215953.12258@erbe.se>
Date: 16 Nov 90 21:59:53 GMT
References: <529@comcon.UUCP> <1990Nov12.095657.22489@erbe.se> <1990Nov14.213344.23834@d.cs.okstate.edu>
Organization: ERBE DATA AB, Jakobsberg, Sweden
Lines: 18

In a recent article klarich@d.cs.okstate.edu (KLARICH TERRY JAME) writes:

>I know that cpio will also archive the special and device fines usualy
>found in in /dev.  How ever, I think I remember that cpio won't handle
>symbolic links properly.  I really don't remember if this was for
>everyone's cpio or just one vender's.

Those vendors whose systems has symbolic links (ie, most of them)
have generally extended their cpio's to handle symbolic links. And,
surprise, they have commonly done it in compatible ways. I routinely
move cpio files with symbolic links among Sun's, Encore Multimax'es,
DG AViiON's etc.

-- 
Robert Claeson                  |Reasonable mailers: rclaeson@erbe.se
ERBE DATA AB                    |      Dumb mailers: rclaeson%erbe.se@sunet.se
Jakobsberg, Sweden              |  Perverse mailers: rclaeson%erbe.se@encore.com
Any opinions expressed herein definitely belongs to me and not to my employer.