Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!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: <1990Nov16.220719.12378@erbe.se>
Date: 16 Nov 90 22:07:19 GMT
References: <1990Nov12.095657.22489@erbe.se> <1990Nov14.213344.23834@d.cs.okstate.edu> <1990Nov15.154616.27759@viewlogic.com>
Organization: ERBE DATA AB, Jakobsberg, Sweden
Lines: 28

I wrote:

>Using cpio instead worked just fine. Also, for backup purposes,
>cpio is probably the best. It comes *standard* with the ability to
>detect end-of-tape and create multi-volume archives. It has better
>support for incremental backups and selective restores. And it supports
>longer paths than tar's limit of 100 characters.

And in a recent article, sparks@power.viewlogic.com (Alan Sparks)
replied with:

>Which version of cpio are you running?  The cpio man page on the
>Sun here says, "cpio does not support multiple volume tapes."
>(unquote).

I just checked on a SunOS 4.1 system and you're right, SunOS's cpio
doesn't support multi-file cpio archives, and it lacks many of cpio's
flags, such as -m, -C, -I, -O and the like.

The cpio I'm generally using is the one found in, among others,
UNIX System V Release 3.1 and later. It appears that Sun's cpio
comes from some older version of System V, presumably Release 2.

-- 
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.