home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: uunet!Sun.COM!guy (Guy Harris)
-
- > 1. At no time has a proposal been made to standardise the binary
- > cpio format. Only the `cpio -c' format is under consideration.
-
- A proposal was made by Lorraine Kevra of AT&T to standardize both the binary
- and character "cpio" format. Fortunately, this proposal appears to have been
- dropped in favor of a character-format-only proposal.
-
- > 2. The `cpio -c' format is widely in use in Europe for both Data
- > Interchange and Archival purposes. It's widespread use can
- > be attributed, in part, to its endorsement by the X/OPEN Group.
-
- Both the "tar" and "cpio -c" format are in wide use throughout the world. The
- major commonly available UNIX source distributions all include implementations
- of "tar", but not all of them include implementations of "cpio".
-
- > 8. Inode numbers are not recorded. Symbolic values (derived from a
- > file's inode and device numbers) are stored in the header
- > block. These values are used solely for hard link resolution.
-
- > 9. File types are stored in symbolic form. Symbols are derived from
- > historical UNIX file type values. There is room for 64
- > file types; currently only 5 are supported.
-
- The proposal does not match what is stated in the X/OPEN Portability Guide
- (January 1987). In Volume 2, section "File Formats", under CPIO(4), it states:
-
- When the "-c" option of "cpio(1)" is used, the header information is
- described by:
-
- printf or scanf(<big string>, <list of arguments>);
-
- ...The meanings of the items "h_dev" through "h_mtime" are explained in
- "stat(2)".
-
- The items in question include "h_dev", "h_ino", and "h_mode".
-
- Under "stat(2)", those fields are given their customary UNIX meanings.
-
- I presume X/OPEN plans to alter CPIO(4) to reflect the fact that "h_dev",
- "h_ino", and "h_mode" are no longer directly connected to the "st_dev",
- "st_ino", and "st_mode" fields of the "stat" structure.
-
- > - format cannot be extended to meet future requirements
- > Wrong! Implementations already exist which can
- > archive symbolic links and contiguous files.
- > There is far more scope for future extension
- > than available in the proposed USTAR format.
-
- Could you please indicate how this is the case?
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 12, Number 11
-
-