Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!gatech!destroyer!cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!sitka.triumf.ca!felawka From: felawka@sitka.triumf.ca (Larry Felawka) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development Subject: Re: any chance of... Date: 31 Mar 1993 02:17:09 GMT Organization: TRIUMF, Vancouver BC Lines: 20 Distribution: world Message-ID: <1pauv5INN771@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> References: <1p84lbINN1j1@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> <JKH.93Mar30023319@whisker.lotus.ie> <1993Mar30.041706.28158@coe.montana.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: sitka.triumf.ca In article <1993Mar30.041706.28158@coe.montana.edu> nate@cs.montana.edu (Nate Williams) writes: [stuff deleted] >It is my opinion (and I bounced this off Bill) that we use ....... >(does he dare say it.....) TAR for the next distribution. > >I asked Bill about this one, and the reason he used cpio on the >original distribution is because the cpio binary was much smaller >than the tar binary, and hence they could fit more stuff in the >distribution floppies. If someone could come up with a minimal >tar, it would make things much easier for the next distribution >(I've got one around 75K, that's freely re-distributable, but if Gee Nate, the only argument you give is one AGAINST using TAR. What's wrong with cpio? (let the cpio flame war commence ...) Larry