Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!std-unix
From: zink@seismo.CSS.GOV@bunker.uucp (David Zink)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Re: tar vs. cpio
Message-ID: <8409@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-Jul-87 17:00:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.8409
Posted: Fri Jul  3 17:00:04 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Jul-87 15:28:20 EDT
References: <8188@ut-sally.UUCP> <8208@ut-sally.UUCP> <8249@ut-sally.UUCP> <8276@ut-sally.UUCP> <8362@ut-sally.UUCP>
Sender: std-unix@ut-sally.UUCP
Reply-To: harvard!husc6!bunker!zink@seismo.CSS.GOV (David Zink)
Organization: Bunker Ramo an Olivetti Company, Shelton CT
Lines: 28
Approved: jsq@sally.utexas.edu (Moderator, John Quarterman)

From: harvard!husc6!bunker!zink@seismo.CSS.GOV (David Zink)

In article <8362@ut-sally.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
)From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
)
)As a counterpoint to Kenneth Almquist's example of tar fouling up links,
)try the following:
)
)	echo hi >one
)	ln one two
)	ls one two | cpio -o >/tmp/foo
)	rm one two
)	cpio -i one </tmp/foo
)	cpio -i two </tmp/foo
)
)Now we have cpio creating two files where there was supposed to be only one
)with two links.  Note that tar would get this one right!  (Although you would
)have to be careful to get the order right, admittedly a wart.)

Actually This should always create TWO FILES! Unless you want to go to
the effort of proving that one has not been modified when two is removed.
We're seeing two separate invocations of cpio with no knowledge of each
other -- How could it be correct to link them ??
:g/^>/s//;-)/

[ Um, haven't we about beat this subsubject to death?  - mod ]

Volume-Number: Volume 11, Number 86