Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ames!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: IEEE 1003.2 (was Re: fixing rm * (was: Worm/Passwords))
Message-ID: <9154@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 12 Dec 88 18:14:13 GMT
References: <1812@ndsuvax.UUCP> <717@quintus.UUCP> <6518@csli.STANFORD.EDU> <6550@csli.STANFORD.EDU> <145@minya.UUCP> <9137@smoke.BRL.MIL> <33251@think.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 16

In article <33251@think.UUCP> barmar@kulla.think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>So, the point is not whether "ar" CAN be usable with non-object module files,
>but whether it MUST be usable with them.  Sounds like they are
>requiring "ar" to be enough to create object libraries, not a
>general-purpose archiving utility.

But MY point is that "ar" is practically the ONLY UNIX utility to have been
hammered over the years into producing a completely portable format (when
used for text files).  Even cpio -c and tar formats fail to be as portable.
This was a deliberate design choice that was eventually adopted for the
major UNIX variants.  The evolution to that format involved some fairly
painful accommodations in SGS software, but the price was considered
worthwhile in trade-off for the benefits of a portable character format.
For a group supposedly concerned about portability to be apparently unaware
of this important historical fact makes me wonder also about the other
choices they're making.