Path: utzoo!mnetor!spectrix!yunexus!gen1!yunccn!shields
From: shields@yunccn.UUCP (Paul Shields)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: (shar(uuencode(arc)))
Message-ID: <379@yunccn.UUCP>
Date: 22 Apr 88 03:19:50 GMT
References: <446@csccat.UUCP>
Organization: York University, Toronto Canada
Lines: 45
Summary: We need a standard bundling method

In article <446@csccat.UUCP>, loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) writes:
> 	This is crazy. We have programs "shar'd", "uuencoded", and "arc'd".
> 	If that wasn't enough, versions of arc are spawning like wild
> 	flowers. It makes no sense!

Right on! 

It's time to agree on a standard bundling method.  The criteria for choosing
it HAS to be the following, or it will be useless to many of us: 

- Must be unbundleable automatically, (READ: without human intervention. 
  All those people out there who want to archive everything they get will 
  love this idea.)  This means header lines describe the packing method used.
  No problem, because we'll have a moderator, right?  He can unpack/repack 
  if necessary (hopefully not necessary.)

- Must run on Unix *and* MS-DOS. The reason for this is that DOS sites are 
  cropping up all over the place.  I manage one myself.  If this is an 
  MS-DOS group, files ought to be unbundleable on the target machines, right?

- DO NOT COMPRESS TEXT! -- the compression algorithms on the Unix systems
  do not perform well if they're forced to try to compress a 
  compressed/uuencoded file. It gets bigger.  Unix sysadmins constantly
  complain about this, so we should listen.

  How about some sort of uuencode-ish format for text files, that makes 
  sure the text files don't get munged up by those brain-damaged mailers, 
  but doesn't twist the file into unreadability?  Then the Unix compress
  algorithms can munch away happily at it. 

- Use Public Domain software. Sure, you can use your shareware software
  to bundle or unbundle it, but I want the option of using public-domain
  only software on my end. 

    Well, what have we? 
	- uuencode/uudecode work fine on both Unix and MS-DOS.
	- There's ZOO, and ARC-compatibles. 
	- SHAR?  Well, ok, but that leaves DOS out in the cold unless you 
	  can provide an UN-SHAR for DOS that works (incidentally, the one 
	  I have wasn't capable of handling Keith Peterson's SHAR format.)
	  Why not extend uuencode/uudecode instead?
-- 
Paul Shields, 			Did you know:  We are the "They" all of those
shields@yunccn.UUCP,		paranoid people worry about.
or root@nccnat.UUCP