Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ncrcae.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!mcnc!ncsu!ncrcae!wescott From: wescott@ncrcae.UUCP (Mike Wescott) Newsgroups: net.unix Subject: Re: tar .vs. cpio Message-ID: <2073@ncrcae.UUCP> Date: Fri, 10-Aug-84 23:06:10 EDT Article-I.D.: ncrcae.2073 Posted: Fri Aug 10 23:06:10 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 14-Aug-84 00:57:52 EDT References: <198@ucbopal.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> Organization: NCR, Columbia, SC Lines: 31 There are several reasons why I prefer cpio to tar, the biggest one being that I used cpio first and got used to its peculiarities rather than tar. But prejudice aside: 1. cpio handles special files (device nodes) 2. pass option (-p) in combo with find allows me to easily move entire subtrees around easily (I realize it can be done with a tar-to-tar pipeline, but cpio is more straightforeward) 3. rename option when de-archiving allows greater flexiblity in where to put/name things 4. for archiving, find has -cpio and -ncpio options which do not require the pipe Drawbacks in cpio: 1. No easy way to override full pathname in the archive 2. Loses phase easily, bad spot on some records makes rest of archive unsalvagable 3. File extraction does not include the directory and (recursively) everything in it if a directory is specified as the file to be extracted, its annoying to remember to spec. xyz* to get the xyz directory and its contents 4. To be portable to the v7-based UNIXes I still need to use tar Mike Wescott NCR Corp. mcnc!ncsu!\ >ncrcae!wescott akgua!usceast!/