cpio vs. tar. was: OSR5 install of 971031

[Robert Lipe]

>   > > It's a pretty common problem.  I always thought using "B" in gcc was
>   > > bogus.  Regardless, it's a one line tweak to use cpio since we've
>   > > had other systems with this exact problem.
>   > 
>   > Hmm, shouldn't we use autoconf to determine the existence of cpio?
> If you write a test, I'll happily include it.

Is it really worth the bother?    Isn't cpio one of those utilities 
that's been around since UNIX was distributed on clay tablets?   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though X/open has marked it "to be withdrawn" and SUSv2 tags it as 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?


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.

Alternately, we can continue to patch this one system at a time until
we all die.    Here's one that should fix the system this was reported
on.

*** gcc/configure.in_   Sat Nov  1 00:49:10 1997
--- gcc/configure.in    Tue Nov  4 09:09:26 1997
***************
*** 933,942 ****
--- 933,943 ----
                ;;
        i[[3456]]86-*-sco3.2v5*)                # 80386 running SCO Open Server
5
                xm_file=i386/xm-sco5.h
                xmake_file=i386/x-sco5
                fixincludes=fixinc.sco
+               install_headers_dir=install-headers-cpio
                tm_file=i386/sco5.h
                tmake_file=i386/t-sco5
                extra_parts="crtbegin.o crtend.o crtbeginS.o crtendS.o"
                ;;
        i[[3456]]86-*-sco3.2v4*)                # 80386 running SCO 3.2v4 system