home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: Doug Gwyn <gwyn@smoke.brl.mil>
-
- >There was a discussion about whether it is possible (and preferable)
- >to improve the low-level directory interfaces instead of adding new,
- >high-level interfaces. Do the high-level interfaces really add new
- >functionality for portable applications? Do they belong with the
- >low-level operating system interfaces specified in 1003.1?
-
- No, definitely not. However, they would be appropriate at the 1003.2
- level. Note that 1003.2 implementations are not constrained to use
- only 1003.1 facilities, so the fact that it's hard to implement tree
- walkers right using the existing 1003.1 directory access functions is
- no argument against defining tree walkers as part of a higher level.
-
- >The ISO POSIX group (JTC1/SC22/WG15) pointed out that both of these
- >[tar, cpio] formats are incompatible with accepted international and U.S.
- >standards. After some arm twisting, the 1003.1 working group agreed
- >to devise a new data interchange format based on IS 1001: 1986, which
- >is more or less equivalent to ANS X3.27-1987, the familiar ANSI
- >labeled tape format.
-
- The ANSI magtape format is simply inappropriate. UNIX archives were
- designed to be single files, making it simple to transport them by
- means other than magnetic tape. In this modern networked world, for
- the most part magnetic tape is an anachronism. Any archive format
- standard for UNIX should not depend on the archive supporting
- multiple files, tape marks, or any other non-UNIX concept.
-
- It is to the credit of UNIX's original designers that they did NOT
- blindly adopt existing standards when they were technically inferior.
- Let's not make the POSIX standards impose conventional-think upon
- UNIX environments..
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 20, Number 69
-
-