Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!cg-atla!fredex
From: fredex@cg-atla.UUCP (Fred Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Binaries and which packing (Was Re: xx vs. uu)
Message-ID: <8386@cg-atla.UUCP>
Date: 19 Feb 90 00:35:20 GMT
References: <8066@lindy.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: fredex@cg-atla.UUCP (Fred Smith)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Agfa Compugraphic Division
Lines: 20


Well, I don't think it matters which archiver we use for packing
the distributed binaries. The whole problem can be avoided by using
one of the utilities which creates a self-extracting archive. This
can be done with ZIP, ZOO, and LHARC (at least). Sure, this makes
the archive a bit bigger, but at least for ZIP and LHARC they are
noticeably smaller anyway than ARC or ZOO files, so the little bit
won't hurt us.

The advantage of this is that it makes it easier for people who don't
happen to have the particular favor of archiver we use to still use
the distributed programs. As long as the moderator can handle a wide
variety of formats, then he can easily re-pack the submissions into
whatever form he decides to use on the group.

I hereby vote (for whatever good it does) for using one of the self-
extracting archiver formats.

Fred Smith
fredex@cg-atla.agfa.com