Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnewsl!clyde!feg
From: feg@clyde.ATT.COM (Forrest Gehrke,2C-119,7239,ATTBL)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Binaries and which packing (Was Re: xx vs. uu)
Message-ID: <4134@cbnewsl.ATT.COM>
Date: 15 Feb 90 11:53:56 GMT
References: <1513@krafla.rhi.hi.is> <1990Feb14.134810.8305@uwasa.fi>
Sender: nntp@cbnewsl.ATT.COM
Reply-To: feg@clyde.ATT.COM
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 38

In article <1990Feb14.134810.8305@uwasa.fi>, ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi LASK) writes:
> Here we go again.  I agree that the new moderator is the person to
> make the decision.  But if the packing method comes under discussion
> again, the situation is different from the time when .zoo was
> chosen:
> 
> 1) .zoo was Rahul's own method, which meant that the moderator was
> through and through familiar with the method and the possible problems
> and remedies. 
>

  Nor has ZOO seen wide acceptance in the PC world anywhere but here.

 
> 2) We now have unzip available for unix, which means that file
> integrity can be tested without first having to transfer to PC the
> way it used to be.  Also .zip files can now be unpacked under unix. 

I have managed to compile two UNZIP versions for BSD Unix on SysV rel3
Unix  but the resulting programs have not worked reliably.  This may
have been due to the changes I had to make, but I have not heard of
any other SysV version.

> 
> 3) We still do not have unix zip, that is packing under unix (or if
> we do, it has not yet been generally circulated). 
> 
> 4) Compared to .arc .zip and .lzh (all now more or less available
> for unix), .zoo was (and is) quite cumbersome to use, especially in
> packing. 
> 

I certainly agree with Timo on this point.
Since there are good working versions of ARC on the two main versions
of Unix and there is no question of its availability on the PC's
ARC seems the best choice.

Forrest Gehrke feg@clyde.ATT.COM