Glenn Fowler wrote:
>
> another opinion from the lurking gallery
>
> re only doing the 'un' part: it makes sense for deprecated and fringe formats
> I periodically get attachments (from known sources) in strange formats
> the first step, always, is to get it out of the strange format and leave th
Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 08:19:11PM +, Peter Dennis wrote:
> > Now having said that I like the idea that was mentioned - pax with
> > the various format support that sounds like a Very Sensible Approach
> > but how would that fit with someone who does not know that pa
John Plocher wrote:
> David.Comay at Sun.COM wrote:
> > Whether or not we should do "unzoo" or "nethack" seems much more a
> > business decision.
>
>
> The architecture question for me is
>
> Do we do unzoo and unustar and unasc and unvdb and untnef and
>
> OR
>
> do we do pax, which do
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Nicolas Williams wrote:
>
>
>> On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 08:19:11PM +, Peter Dennis wrote:
>>
>>> Now having said that I like the idea that was mentioned - pax with
>>> the various format support that sounds like a Very Sensible Approach
>>> but how would that fi
This case raised the following issues:
o integrating unzoo in isolation is architecturally
incomplete without the corresponding zoo command
which in itself allows for the extraction of files
from zoo archives.
o the little utility for having such a command.
o the command should be an O
"Garrett D'Amore" wrote:
> > What do you understand by pax(1)?
> >
> > The pax binary in /usr/bin on Solaris is closed source and it makes no
> > sense to
> > even think about enhancing it.
> >
>
> That doesn't preclude integrating an alternate implementation, though.
> (And this may be de
