Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!xanth!ames!claris!apple!voder!pyramid!leadsv!oetl!randy From: randy@oetl.UUCP (Randy O'Meara) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: alt.sources archiving Message-ID: <425@oetl1.oetl.UUCP> Date: 18 Mar 89 23:10:49 GMT References: <727@vector.UUCP> <10985@well.UUCP> Reply-To: randy@oetl.UUCP (Randy O'Meara) Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Co, Env. Test Lab., Santa Cruz, Ca. Lines: 70 In article <10985@well.UUCP> Jef Poskanzer writes: >In the referenced message, chip@vector.UUCP (Chip Rosenthal) wrote: >}Personally, I'd like to see something like: >} Submitted-by: My Name >} Posting-number: Volume 89 >} Archive-name: pgm_name >}This leaves off the "Issue" part of the "Posting-number" field. Roll the >}volume number annually. 12 chars or less on archive name, please, to >}allow for ".Z". Comments? * Here! Here! >Why do you need Submitted-by: when you already have From:? Why do you >need a number, especially if it's only going to change once per year? >Why do you need a separate Archive-name:, when some simple conventions * The Posting-number uniquely identifies the top level directory and the Archive-name uniquely identifies all subdirectories under the top level directory. Take a look at c.s.amiga and c.b.amiga for an excellent example of very functional (and consistent) naming conventions. For example; if the binaries and sources for a distribution are separated and shoved down their appropriate piplines ( comp.sources.? and comp.binaries.? ), but contain the same Archive-name, a script that process both distributions actually joins the sources and the binaries in the same destination directory. Now that's automation! >for what goes in the Subject: line would work even better? Why do you * Grepping a Subject: line for a consistent filename is a *real* pain, whereas using a *defined* format for Archive-name is soooo simple. You know what's supposed to be there, and if your scripts find an inconsistency, they can alert you right away. >want to store the postings in a filename specified by the poster, with >all the security issues that brings up? * There are *no* security issues that I'm aware of unless you run your scripts as root and use absolute pathnames. I have set up a special UID and GID for this purpose. Regular-old Unix file access security is all that's needed. Allowing the poster to specify a *relative* pathname allows everyone to refer to the files in the distribution coherently. In other words, if you have a trashed file in your copy of the distribution, you don't have to ask for the entire Partm of n, just ask for a new copy of the trashed file. >What's wrong with just saving the posting in a numbered file, grepping >out the From: and Subject: lines to save in an index, and compressing >the file? * Nothing if you just deal with a few sources. If you archive *alot* of the source/binary groups and actually work with the postings (compile/install/modify/reference), then you (I) must maintain them in a usable state (zoo/arc/tar/etc). * Just an aside here. I archive games, unix, amiga, x, pc, and alt sources (and some binaries). Alt sources is the *only* one in this list that requires a modified perl script. All of the others have (resonably) consistent headers. -- _______________________________________________________________ < Randy O'Meara -- LMSC -- SCF > < {pyramid,leadsv}!oetl!randy PHONE: (408) 425-6249 > <_______________________________________________________________>