Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.dal.ca!silvert
From: silvert@cs.dal.ca (Bill Silvert)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: LHARC sources (was Re: LHARC takes over?  Sure hope not!)
Summary: Are there PORTABLE sources?`
Message-ID: <1990Jan5.173945.5811@cs.dal.ca>
Date: 5 Jan 90 17:39:45 GMT
References: <6716@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> <5440094@hplsla.HP.COM> <1922@calvin.cs.mcgill.ca>
Sender: silvert@cs.dal.ca.UUCP (Bill Silvert)
Reply-To: bill@biomel.UUCP
Organization: Habitat Ecology Div., Bedford Inst. of Oceanography
Lines: 28

In article <1922@calvin.cs.mcgill.ca> depeche@calvin.cs.mcgill.ca (Sam Alan EZUST) writes:
>In article <5440094@hplsla.HP.COM> andyc@hplsla.HP.COM (Andy Cassino) writes:
>>
> >As for Usenet binaries, Steven Grimm has stated that LHARC source must 
> >be available before LHARC'd binaries are acceptable. When/if that happens,
> >I would think that conservation of net bandwidth should make LHARC the
> >preferred program.
> >
>well, at terminator.cc.umich.edu in atari/new directory, there is a file
>called LHARCSRC.arc which looks like something worthwhile to look at...

There are clearly sources floating around, but I think that Grimm's
posting referred to the portability issue.  I have the LHARC sources for
MS-DOS, and they are mostly in assembler.  I use LHARC for distributing
MS-DOS software and I think it has some really great features, but not
being able to run it under Unix is a tremendous inconvenience for me.
This is probably true of anyone who runs archives on different kinds of
computers.

By the way, i haven't been using the ST version of LHARC, but the latest
MS-DOS version, 1.13C, is super, especially with regard to compression
ratio and the flexibility of self-extracting archives.

-- 
Bill Silvert, Habitat Ecology Division.
Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Dartmouth, NS, Canada B2Y 4A2
UUCP: ...!{uunet,watmath}!dalcs!biomel!bill
Internet: bill%biomel@cs.dal.CA		BITNET: bill%biomel%dalcs@dalac