Re: FSUM7197 pax: invalid archive format selected
Eunix was designed for a PDP-7, and we are suffering from some of the design decisions made then. But the myth of windows being user friendly is just a myth; the reality is quite different. So, yes, z/OS suffers from some really bad decisions made decades ago, but so do the other systems. The prevalence of windows has as much to do with the monopolistic practices of ms as with anything else. BTW, to what extent has z/VSE overcome the ghastly syntax of DOS JCL? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Charles Mills [charl...@mcn.org] Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 12:56 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: FSUM7197 pax: invalid archive format selected It's fine that UNIX is designed for professionals but (a.) some of us are professionals at many things but have to use UNIX only occasionally; and (b.) no one is born a professional. If you make it hard for folks to get started as non-professionals, then they will gravitate elsewhere and become professionals there. That may be why Windows is a lot more common choice for desktops than is UNIX. (And why z/OS is not exactly storming the marketplace. Your COND= plaint is of course legendary.) Good software design would be newbie-friendly by default, and accommodating of professionals if one so chose. The link is amusing. Thanks. I don't hate UNIX. I am not a computer religious zealot. People pay me to use computers, and I enjoy doing so for the most part, so I do. This feature of UNIX wasted an hour of my client's time. And some of your time and Gil's. And others who read the post, shook their heads, and moved on. > IBM really goofed up by not using the GNU libraries IBM does not share their thinking with me but I suspect they wanted "real" UNIX, and GNU is of course ... Not UNIX. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of John McKown Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 9:21 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: FSUM7197 pax: invalid archive format selected Caution -- tacky in-line comment. On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 8:46 AM Charles Mills wrote: > What the heck were the UNIX designers thinking when they allowed the > casual creation of a filename of -x? They were thinking that UNIX is for professionals who know what they're doing and didn't want to be "molly coddled" and protected from themselves. That's for Windows users. And, really, this is more an artifact of the Bourne shell, not the UNIX kernel. In fact, UNIX allows a file to have any characters in it other than 0x00. Mainly because it is written in C. That's freedom, which requires responsibility. Well, actually, UNIX probably allowed it because it was developed, I think, on a PDP-7 which was very memory constrained and so they didn't do a whole lot of coding to validate "reasonableness". You might enjoy this: https://secure-web.cisco.com/1-dM3BmUBAUH2sYYhQ2RsAvGkVtVKvvlmn3hdBcYfcSknMrTzVTPbBJFXPAESy6rTdpzcZacofe__Dg3GxMaZHSw_of1qimWxUcoewgghJarztW2FVxbiAdANmeTIfBI7nluNfkbyqgBMm5IamPVQQPiWFvvzDFDZHlurgt0gilfOoKRJdzjYkCtuej7AS_bid4n8H4E8jC4NV8RhuSBJze3KrS3qtoQqb1Lc8t1ZVyRSSBmB15KX5cdZ2TUKLeI78r-BWaEkfZWky7Sg7-yeQvjbW2YzZ9yDHOam26YNo8CIOVFPGeJgshgrw8XDVpZH2JmROkcuQBbWS4n9HSp-AQIQe2B3p3AywEmsrVL4dAmIeTQ_9oEj_p-v4ozuWJPILEiqw3BefiNi_i251bOEFFBBoo5NDhy5I5DlvHNGuG0ybZO8TwBBl_7mSxLIR2jQ/https%3A%2F%2Fweb.mit.edu%2F%7Esimsong%2Fwww%2Fugh.pdf The UNIX Haters Handbook. > There may be a legitimate reason why someone would want to create a file > named -x but if so, then *they* should be made to jump through some small > hoop and "escape" the name in some way. The innocent victim who stumbles > into this situation should not be the one made to jump through hoops. Will > UNIX allow the creation of a file named "rm *"? That could have some > interesting side effects. > Simple to do that: touch 'rm *' More "difficult" touch rm\ \* > > How did I inadvertently create a file named -x? I had a pax command > > pax -wzvf /my/archive.pax * > > I had an error that I thought might be solved by -x os390. Looking at the > above command I forgot that /my/archive.pax "went with" the -f and coded > > pax -wzvf -x os390 /my/archive.pax * > > That has the effect of creating an archive named -x. UNIX did not complain > or warn about that at all. (It complained about some unnamed file not being > found, presumably os390.) That is poor design IMHO. > Perhaps. But, then again, WAD. Or perhaps BAD. But the command did exactly what it was documented to do. Might as well complain, as I have, about the backwardness of COND= in JCL. I now only use // IF and it's friends for condition checking. > > Heck, if the shell is going t
Re: FSUM7197 pax: invalid archive format selected
It's fine that UNIX is designed for professionals but (a.) some of us are professionals at many things but have to use UNIX only occasionally; and (b.) no one is born a professional. If you make it hard for folks to get started as non-professionals, then they will gravitate elsewhere and become professionals there. That may be why Windows is a lot more common choice for desktops than is UNIX. (And why z/OS is not exactly storming the marketplace. Your COND= plaint is of course legendary.) Good software design would be newbie-friendly by default, and accommodating of professionals if one so chose. The link is amusing. Thanks. I don't hate UNIX. I am not a computer religious zealot. People pay me to use computers, and I enjoy doing so for the most part, so I do. This feature of UNIX wasted an hour of my client's time. And some of your time and Gil's. And others who read the post, shook their heads, and moved on. > IBM really goofed up by not using the GNU libraries IBM does not share their thinking with me but I suspect they wanted "real" UNIX, and GNU is of course ... Not UNIX. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of John McKown Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 9:21 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: FSUM7197 pax: invalid archive format selected Caution -- tacky in-line comment. On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 8:46 AM Charles Mills wrote: > What the heck were the UNIX designers thinking when they allowed the > casual creation of a filename of -x? They were thinking that UNIX is for professionals who know what they're doing and didn't want to be "molly coddled" and protected from themselves. That's for Windows users. And, really, this is more an artifact of the Bourne shell, not the UNIX kernel. In fact, UNIX allows a file to have any characters in it other than 0x00. Mainly because it is written in C. That's freedom, which requires responsibility. Well, actually, UNIX probably allowed it because it was developed, I think, on a PDP-7 which was very memory constrained and so they didn't do a whole lot of coding to validate "reasonableness". You might enjoy this: https://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf The UNIX Haters Handbook. > There may be a legitimate reason why someone would want to create a file > named -x but if so, then *they* should be made to jump through some small > hoop and "escape" the name in some way. The innocent victim who stumbles > into this situation should not be the one made to jump through hoops. Will > UNIX allow the creation of a file named "rm *"? That could have some > interesting side effects. > Simple to do that: touch 'rm *' More "difficult" touch rm\ \* > > How did I inadvertently create a file named -x? I had a pax command > > pax -wzvf /my/archive.pax * > > I had an error that I thought might be solved by -x os390. Looking at the > above command I forgot that /my/archive.pax "went with" the -f and coded > > pax -wzvf -x os390 /my/archive.pax * > > That has the effect of creating an archive named -x. UNIX did not complain > or warn about that at all. (It complained about some unnamed file not being > found, presumably os390.) That is poor design IMHO. > Perhaps. But, then again, WAD. Or perhaps BAD. But the command did exactly what it was documented to do. Might as well complain, as I have, about the backwardness of COND= in JCL. I now only use // IF and it's friends for condition checking. > > Heck, if the shell is going to expand the * then it could generate a > warning "hey, did you know that one of your files has a name that looks > just like a switch?" > Hum, now that might be an interesting thing to be able to do! The BASH shell has a "shopts" builtin command to set some shell options. The GNU utilities, well most of them, have a -- options which says anything which has a leading dash after the double dash is _not_ to be interpreted as an option. But that is not the shell itself. I think it is really an artifact of the GNU version of "getopt()" https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Using-Getopt.html IBM really goofed up by not using the GNU libraries, or at least their design, in z/OS UNIX. I am thinking they used base AIX. Which is hilarious because AIX has GNU ported to it and I am fairly sure every programmer uses it. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: FSUM7197 pax: invalid archive format selected
Let me update this a little. When I said "professional", I should have said something like "power user" in today's vernacular. The shell is a field full of mines for those who are not familiar with it. I've been using Linux for about 20 years, and I still get tripped up at times with BASH. I didn't mean to disparage Mr. Mills. He know z/OS well. But the UNIX side is hard to get used to. Like when I went from a Xerox Sigma 7 using BPM to MVT using JCL. I said many nasty things about JCL. I finally, mainly, learned it. On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 11:21 AM John McKown wrote: > Caution -- tacky in-line comment. > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 8:46 AM Charles Mills wrote: > >> What the heck were the UNIX designers thinking when they allowed the >> casual creation of a filename of -x? > > > They were thinking that UNIX is for professionals who know what they're > doing and didn't want to be "molly coddled" and protected from themselves. > That's for Windows users. And, really, this is more an artifact of the > Bourne shell, not the UNIX kernel. In fact, UNIX allows a file to have any > characters in it other than 0x00. Mainly because it is written in C. That's > freedom, which requires responsibility. > > Well, actually, UNIX probably allowed it because it was developed, I > think, on a PDP-7 which was very memory constrained and so they didn't do a > whole lot of coding to validate "reasonableness". > > You might enjoy this: https://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf The UNIX > Haters Handbook. > > > >> There may be a legitimate reason why someone would want to create a file >> named -x but if so, then *they* should be made to jump through some small >> hoop and "escape" the name in some way. The innocent victim who stumbles >> into this situation should not be the one made to jump through hoops. Will >> UNIX allow the creation of a file named "rm *"? That could have some >> interesting side effects. >> > > Simple to do that: > > touch 'rm *' > > More "difficult" > > touch rm\ \* > > >> >> How did I inadvertently create a file named -x? I had a pax command >> >> pax -wzvf /my/archive.pax * >> >> I had an error that I thought might be solved by -x os390. Looking at the >> above command I forgot that /my/archive.pax "went with" the -f and coded >> >> pax -wzvf -x os390 /my/archive.pax * >> >> That has the effect of creating an archive named -x. UNIX did not >> complain or warn about that at all. (It complained about some unnamed file >> not being found, presumably os390.) That is poor design IMHO. >> > > Perhaps. But, then again, WAD. Or perhaps BAD. But the command did exactly > what it was documented to do. Might as well complain, as I have, about the > backwardness of COND= in JCL. I now only use // IF and it's friends for > condition checking. > > > >> >> Heck, if the shell is going to expand the * then it could generate a >> warning "hey, did you know that one of your files has a name that looks >> just like a switch?" >> > > Hum, now that might be an interesting thing to be able to do! The BASH > shell has a "shopts" builtin command to set some shell options. The GNU > utilities, well most of them, have a -- options which says anything which > has a leading dash after the double dash is _not_ to be interpreted as an > option. But that is not the shell itself. I think it is really an artifact > of the GNU version of "getopt()" > https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Using-Getopt.html > > IBM really goofed up by not using the GNU libraries, or at least their > design, in z/OS UNIX. I am thinking they used base AIX. Which is > hilarious because AIX has GNU ported to it and I am fairly sure every > programmer uses it. > > >> >> Charles >> >> -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: FSUM7197 pax: invalid archive format selected
Caution -- tacky in-line comment. On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 8:46 AM Charles Mills wrote: > What the heck were the UNIX designers thinking when they allowed the > casual creation of a filename of -x? They were thinking that UNIX is for professionals who know what they're doing and didn't want to be "molly coddled" and protected from themselves. That's for Windows users. And, really, this is more an artifact of the Bourne shell, not the UNIX kernel. In fact, UNIX allows a file to have any characters in it other than 0x00. Mainly because it is written in C. That's freedom, which requires responsibility. Well, actually, UNIX probably allowed it because it was developed, I think, on a PDP-7 which was very memory constrained and so they didn't do a whole lot of coding to validate "reasonableness". You might enjoy this: https://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf The UNIX Haters Handbook. > There may be a legitimate reason why someone would want to create a file > named -x but if so, then *they* should be made to jump through some small > hoop and "escape" the name in some way. The innocent victim who stumbles > into this situation should not be the one made to jump through hoops. Will > UNIX allow the creation of a file named "rm *"? That could have some > interesting side effects. > Simple to do that: touch 'rm *' More "difficult" touch rm\ \* > > How did I inadvertently create a file named -x? I had a pax command > > pax -wzvf /my/archive.pax * > > I had an error that I thought might be solved by -x os390. Looking at the > above command I forgot that /my/archive.pax "went with" the -f and coded > > pax -wzvf -x os390 /my/archive.pax * > > That has the effect of creating an archive named -x. UNIX did not complain > or warn about that at all. (It complained about some unnamed file not being > found, presumably os390.) That is poor design IMHO. > Perhaps. But, then again, WAD. Or perhaps BAD. But the command did exactly what it was documented to do. Might as well complain, as I have, about the backwardness of COND= in JCL. I now only use // IF and it's friends for condition checking. > > Heck, if the shell is going to expand the * then it could generate a > warning "hey, did you know that one of your files has a name that looks > just like a switch?" > Hum, now that might be an interesting thing to be able to do! The BASH shell has a "shopts" builtin command to set some shell options. The GNU utilities, well most of them, have a -- options which says anything which has a leading dash after the double dash is _not_ to be interpreted as an option. But that is not the shell itself. I think it is really an artifact of the GNU version of "getopt()" https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Using-Getopt.html IBM really goofed up by not using the GNU libraries, or at least their design, in z/OS UNIX. I am thinking they used base AIX. Which is hilarious because AIX has GNU ported to it and I am fairly sure every programmer uses it. > > Charles > > -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: FSUM7197 pax: invalid archive format selected
What the heck were the UNIX designers thinking when they allowed the casual creation of a filename of -x? There may be a legitimate reason why someone would want to create a file named -x but if so, then *they* should be made to jump through some small hoop and "escape" the name in some way. The innocent victim who stumbles into this situation should not be the one made to jump through hoops. Will UNIX allow the creation of a file named "rm *"? That could have some interesting side effects. How did I inadvertently create a file named -x? I had a pax command pax -wzvf /my/archive.pax * I had an error that I thought might be solved by -x os390. Looking at the above command I forgot that /my/archive.pax "went with" the -f and coded pax -wzvf -x os390 /my/archive.pax * That has the effect of creating an archive named -x. UNIX did not complain or warn about that at all. (It complained about some unnamed file not being found, presumably os390.) That is poor design IMHO. Heck, if the shell is going to expand the * then it could generate a warning "hey, did you know that one of your files has a name that looks just like a switch?" Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 5:50 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: FSUM7197 pax: invalid archive format selected On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 16:30:35 -0800, Charles Mills wrote: >No, I was trying to archive the current directory, and it contained a file >named -x (created accidentally) and the next folder is named 'foldername' (per >my original post). > >John is saying that the shell expands the folders recursively, so pax sees pax >blah blah -x foldername ... > >And says foldername is an invalid operand for -x. > >Comprende? > I understand; I'm merely astonished that pax uses shell filename expansion to build a command line which is passed to pax as a list of individual filenames. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: FSUM7197 pax: invalid archive format selected
On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 15:28:10 -0800, Charles Mills wrote: > >pax -wvzf /u/maint/myarchive.pax * On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 16:30:35 -0800, Charles Mills wrote: > >No, I was trying to archive the current directory, and it contained a file >named -x (created accidentally) and the next folder is named 'foldername' (per >my original post). > Not "recursively"; it's ordinary shell filename expansion, which isn't recursive, but results in "-x" passed as an argument to pax. Particularly treacherous because "-" collates early. My preferred approaches are: pax -wvzf /u/maint/myarchive.pax ./* # Should work. Or: pax -wvzf /u/maint/myarchive.pax .# Better. Unless you need to exclude dotted files. All WAD. --gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: FSUM7197 pax: invalid archive format selected
On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 16:30:35 -0800, Charles Mills wrote:
>No, I was trying to archive the current directory, and it contained a file
>named -x (created accidentally) and the next folder is named 'foldername' (per
>my original post).
>
>John is saying that the shell expands the folders recursively, so pax sees pax
>blah blah -x foldername ...
>
>And says foldername is an invalid operand for -x.
>
>Comprende?
>
I understand; I'm merely astonished that pax uses shell filename expansion to
build a command line which is passed to pax as a list of individual filenames.
What if a filename contains a metacharacter such as space, newline, '?' or '*'?
any misbehavior should be a reportable error. But my test case below behaves
strangely on Linux. It's inconclusive on MacOS because the Mac filesystem
requires that filenames be valid UTF-8.
-- gil
# ##
#! /bin/sh
# Doc: Create files with non-portable names.
set -x
mkdir Weirdos & cd Weirdos & : >test || exit $?
set +x
awk 'BEGIN {
for ( I = 1; I <256; ++I ) {
FName = sprintf( "%cx %03d foo%cbar", I, I, I )
if ( match( FName, "/" ) ) continue
printf( "%03d\n", I, I ) >FName
close( FName ) }
}'
pax -w . || exit $?
ls -al
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: FSUM7197 pax: invalid archive format selected
No, I was trying to archive the current directory, and it contained a file named -x (created accidentally) and the next folder is named 'foldername' (per my original post). John is saying that the shell expands the folders recursively, so pax sees pax blah blah -x foldername ... And says foldername is an invalid operand for -x. Comprende? Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 4:09 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: FSUM7197 pax: invalid archive format selected On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 17:57:25 -0600, John McKown wrote: >Do any of the directories start with a dash? Filename expansion is done by >the shell, not pax. So pax would see a dash and think the rest was an >option. Most likely you have a file or directory which is "-x" so the >following entry, "foldername" is being interpreted as the output format. >There is no fix other than not using a dash as the first character in a >file, directory, etc.name. > Are you discussing command line args? If so, sometimes the circumvention is to use "./-x". -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: FSUM7197 pax: invalid archive format selected
On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 16:05:22 -0800, Charles Mills wrote: >That's it! In some of my screwing around I managed to create a file name -x >unintentionally. > e.g. "touch foo -x". Even if the apparent option results from wildcard expansion. And "-" may collate early. >A bear to delete. Luckily in looking for something else I read about --. rm -- >-x deletes it. > Since each utility interprets its arguments, some may not respect "--", even if POSIX requires it. "./-x" is more reliable. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: FSUM7197 pax: invalid archive format selected
On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 17:57:25 -0600, John McKown wrote: >Do any of the directories start with a dash? Filename expansion is done by >the shell, not pax. So pax would see a dash and think the rest was an >option. Most likely you have a file or directory which is "-x" so the >following entry, "foldername" is being interpreted as the output format. >There is no fix other than not using a dash as the first character in a >file, directory, etc.name. > Are you discussing command line args? If so, sometimes the circumvention is to use "./-x". -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: FSUM7197 pax: invalid archive format selected
That's it! In some of my screwing around I managed to create a file name -x unintentionally. A bear to delete. Luckily in looking for something else I read about --. rm -- -x deletes it. THANKS! Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of John McKown Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 3:57 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: FSUM7197 pax: invalid archive format selected Do any of the directories start with a dash? Filename expansion is done by the shell, not pax. So pax would see a dash and think the rest was an option. Most likely you have a file or directory which is "-x" so the following entry, "foldername" is being interpreted as the output format. There is no fix other than not using a dash as the first character in a file, directory, etc.name. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: FSUM7197 pax: invalid archive format selected
So what do I do? I tried -x pax and -x os390 and still get the error. The weird thing is that I think it was working at one point, but I played with -o trying to solve a different problem and now I get this error all the time. Does pax "remember" options from one execution to another? Does it stick them in an environment variable or something? Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 3:44 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: FSUM7197 pax: invalid archive format selected On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 15:28:10 -0800, Charles Mills wrote: >What the heck is pax trying to tell me? > >I enter the command > >pax -wvzf /u/maint/myarchive.pax * > >and pax responds > >FSUM7197 pax: invalid archive format selected: 'foldername' > >where foldername is one of the directories in the current path. > I believe some archive formats impose harsh limits on the length of a filename or pathname or even UID. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: FSUM7197 pax: invalid archive format selected
On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 15:28:10 -0800, Charles Mills wrote: > >pax -wvzf /u/maint/myarchive.pax * > >FSUM7197 pax: invalid archive format selected: 'foldername' > I looked at the Command Ref. for "pax -x ". I saw no default. Unless someone informs me, I'll submit an RCF. See also in that Command Ref." Appendix H. File formats [various pax, tar, and cpio formats] -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: FSUM7197 pax: invalid archive format selected
On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 15:28:10 -0800, Charles Mills wrote: >What the heck is pax trying to tell me? > >I enter the command > >pax -wvzf /u/maint/myarchive.pax * > >and pax responds > >FSUM7197 pax: invalid archive format selected: 'foldername' > >where foldername is one of the directories in the current path. > I believe some archive formats impose harsh limits on the length of a filename or pathname or even UID. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
