This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: cpio vs. tar. was: OSR5 install of 971031
- To: Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: cpio vs. tar. was: OSR5 install of 971031
- From: teunis <teunis at mauve dot computersupportcentre dot com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 18:05:01 -0700 (MST)
- cc: Robert Lipe <robertl at dgii dot com>, Joern Rennecke <amylaar at cygnus dot co dot uk>, egcs at cygnus dot com, Bill Walker <bw at student dot ecok dot edu>
> > Even though X/open has marked it "to be withdrawn" and SUSv2 tags
> > it as "legacy" suggesting that "Applications should migrate to the
> > pax utility.", would any OS vendor not ship cpio?
> Lots used to not ship cpio, that's changed over time.
>
> > If we were to do anything more ambitious autoconf-ish, would it be
> > any wiser to test for pax and use it instead of either tar or cpio?
> > Then we'd have three different install-headers-* targets, and I doubt
> > that would be a lot of fun, either.
> I'd prefer to just stick with tar/cpio between those two we should
> have every significant unix covered.
>
> I wouldn't object to removing the "B" from the tar options and then
> removing cpio support -- I'm not aware of a system that doesn't ship
> tar (then again, maybe you are :-)
WindowsNT? *ducking*
G'day, eh? ;]
- Teunis
[so when's the next win32-capable image going to appear? :]
(don't answer - I'll watch for announcements)