Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!mordor!joyce!ames!nrl-cmf!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!mcnc!ecsvax!cjl From: cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Charles Lord) Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Re: Source ARCs are inappropriate! Summary: ARCs have important functions Message-ID: <5633@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> Date: 23 Oct 88 02:33:47 GMT References: <7119@dasys1.UUCP> Organization: Triangle R&D Corp,RTP,NC Lines: 19 Tom, I have to disagree. There is a definite advantage from an administration viewpoint for the orderly concatenation of the files, whether source or binaries, into an archive of some *nix/ ms-dos compatable archiver. Shell archivers such as used on net.source.misc are a pain in the butt on programs that have oodles of little include and patch and header files that extract out. I almost always end up making a temp subdirectory, running the shell in that subdirectory, then ARCing everything together for local archive and distribution. Zoo or PKwhatever would work just as well. Your complaint that sources appear on c.b.i.p is noted, but with so many going virus-paranoid it is small bandwidth sacrifice that authors provide either source only or both source and executable. -- * Charles Lord ..!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!cjl Usenet (old) * * Cary, NC cjl@ecsvax.UUCP Usenet (new) * * #include cjl@ecsvax.BITNET Bitnet * * #include cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu Internet *