Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ibmchs!auschs!awdprime!doorstop.austin.ibm.com!tif
From: tif@doorstop.austin.ibm.com (Paul Chamberlain)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: tar or cpio, which is better?
Message-ID: <4322@awdprime.UUCP>
Date: 26 Nov 90 15:10:57 GMT
References: <529@comcon.UUCP> <1990Nov12.095657.22489@erbe.se> <1990Nov15.192615.1238@hemel.bull.co.uk> <329@metran.UUCP> <1990Nov21.172717.16845@eci386.uucp>
Sender: news@awdprime.UUCP
Reply-To: tif@doorstop.austin.ibm.com (Paul Chamberlain)
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin, TX
Lines: 18
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Keywords:

In article <1990Nov21.172717.16845@eci386.uucp> woods@eci386.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes:
>They [the standards bodies] are way ahead of you....  POSIX 1003.1
>defines two portable archive interchange formats: extended tar, and
>extended cpio.  POSIX 1003.2 Draft 9 / August 1989 defines a programme
>called "pax - portable archive interchange" which supports both of
>these formats.  A third new format is under development to "address
>all restrictions and new requirements for security labeling, etc."

Is this third format the PAX native format?  I seem to recall that
PAX had a third format.

This doesn't belong here but I'd like to urge the pax-makers to do
some thorough testing of interoperability between DOS and Unix.  I
tried to use this for some serious and on-going file transfer and
finally decided that I couldn't count on it.

Paul Chamberlain | I do NOT represent IBM.     tif@doorstop, sc30661 at ausvm6
512/838-7008     | ...!cs.utexas.edu!ibmchs!auschs!doorstop.austin.ibm.com!tif