Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!bbn!rochester!rutgers!mtunx!whuts!chl
From: chl@whuts.UUCP (LANG)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: ARC Sources for UNIX
Message-ID: <4077@whuts.UUCP>
Date: 4 Apr 88 16:44:23 GMT
References: <5723@swan.ulowell.edu> <1296@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> <204@iccdev.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 26
Summary: Why is UNIX ARC different than PC ARC?



When I originally posted the message about the recent SYS5 sources for
UNIX ARC being incompatible with the MS-DOS ARC, I had noticed the
-i switch.  This does make it compatible; however, why should this
switch be needed.  Aren't most people just using ARC to go between the
PC and UNIX (and vice versa).  Why force an extra command line argument
which to me really makes it incompatible (OK! if not incompatible, its
at least different and confusing).  The resulting error messages complain
about the number of BITS packed with.  Not the filename lengths.
Besides if you are arc'ing file names that are only 8 chars long on
either UNIX or the PC, why should you need a switch to disable 14 char
names.   I would think that the switch would be better used as a
requirement for only UNIX style files where one desires longer file
names.   Let's keep the normal arguments to ARC the same on the PC
and UNIX so it is "compatible" in its truest sense.
 
Any other feelings on this subject?
 
P.S. Don't get me wrong!  I appreciate the poster's effort in modifying
and in posting the sources.
 
Charlie Lang
whuts!chl
chl@whuts.UUCP