Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!std-unix
From: dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Re: More tar/cpio
Message-ID: <8177@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 27-May-87 12:30:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.8177
Posted: Wed May 27 12:30:05 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 2-Jun-87 00:46:46 EDT
References: <8046@ut-sally.UUCP> <8018@ut-sally.UUCP> <8024@ut-sally.UUCP> <8128@ut-sally.UUCP> <8144@ut-sally.UUCP>
Sender: std-unix@ut-sally.UUCP
Reply-To: seismo.css.gov!bsu-cs!dhesi (Rahul Dhesi)
Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana
Lines: 28
Approved: jsq@sally.utexas.edu (Moderator, John Quarterman)

From: dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi)

I think one issue that needs to be clarified is:  Are we trying to standardize
the user interface of the tar/cpio/other interchange standard, or the archive
format, or both?  For example, although standard tar does not accept filenames
from standard input, that is irrelevant to the actual suitablity of its
archive format.  The POSIX standard could easily use the tar archive format
with the cpio command structure, or vice versa.

[ POSIX is a programming interface standard.  It has nothing to do with
the command interface.  As such, the data interchange format is appropriate
for POSIX to standarize, but the user interface of the command that implements
it is not.  While P1003.2 (Shell and Tools) might be interested in the
user interface, P1003.1 (POSIX) is not.  -mod ]

The obvious choice seems to be the tar archive format (more widely used and
available) with cpio's user interface.

[ The user interface is irrelevant to P1003.1 and POSIX.  The immediate
issue (that must be resolved before balloting on the POSIX Full Use Standard)
is what the data interchange format should be.  Input before the next
P1003.1 Working Group meeting (20-24 June 1987 in Seattle) would be
most helpful.  -mod ]

-- 
Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  {ihnp4,seismo}!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi

Volume-Number: Volume 11, Number 40