boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu (SoftXc Coordinator) (03/26/88)
Since there seems to be such a discussion as to ARC being for MS-DOS only, and a 'legend' of a UNIX version has been floating around, I'll do this: I currently have the sources to the BSD 4.2 UNIX version of ARC. I can also get the SYSV versions very easily. I was wondering how to go about posting them, but finally decided to post them in comp.binaries.ibm.pc, since that is where they are most useful. As is, the UNIX ARC program is FULLY SEA compatible. I have yet to determine whether it is squash compatible, but it seems it is. ZOO is not the only program available for both UNIX and MS-DOS. I will post both versions soon. They consist of three shar files each. Be ready for them. ============================================================================ Brian O'Neill University of Lowell boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu - boneill@hawk.UUCP ...!ulowell!hawk!boneill MS-DOS Software Exchange Coordinator - E-mail for details
creps@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) (03/27/88)
In article <5723@swan.ulowell.edu> boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu (SoftXc Coordinator) writes: >Since there seems to be such a discussion as to ARC being for MS-DOS only, >and a 'legend' of a UNIX version has been floating around, I'll do this: > >I currently have the sources to the BSD 4.2 UNIX version of ARC. I can also I assume that's the one posted last summer or fall? >As is, the UNIX ARC program is FULLY SEA compatible. I have yet to determine >whether it is squash compatible, but it seems it is. ZOO is not the only >program available for both UNIX and MS-DOS. Well, it's not quite compatible, but only if you're not careful. If you build an .arc file on your Unix machine which consists of filenames not compatible with DOS it can cause problems. 1) If the filename contains characters not allowed by DOS you can't extract the file. 2) If the filename is too long (> 12 chars) somehow when you try to extract it again its filename is truncated, but a ^K gets put on the end of the filename. This causes a minor problem in Unix: you have to rename the file. The problem in DOS is that it won't extract the file because the filename is illegal. One more thing to watch out for: if you try to add files to an archive and run out of disk space (or disk quota) you will lose the original archive file. My summary is that it's a good program to have on your Unix system, but you have to be careful and be sure of what you are doing. >I will post both versions soon. They consist of three shar files each. Be >ready for them. If you can't wait and can get them via anonymous ftp, try looking in pub/arc at iuvax.cs.indiana.edu. We have them here too. - - - - - - - - - - Steve Creps on the 8650 runnin' Ultrix at Indiana University. creps@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (192.12.206.2), ...iuvax!silver!creps, creps@iubacs.bitnet "Hey fellas, it's a four-legged V-8!"
chl@whuts.UUCP (LANG) (03/30/88)
I don't know if anyone else has had the same problem I have, but the most recent posting of the SYS5 sources for ARC are incompatible with last years posting and also are incompatible with the MS-DOS version of ARC. I get complaints about the wrong number of BITS being used for packing. The new version does compile and does make an ARC file; however, after downloading the file to a PC. No form of an ARC program can read it. If I upload a file that was ARC'ed on the PC, the new version of ARC will: 1) trying arc v file.arc - complains about a bad header & aborts 2) trying arc x file.arc - complains about incompatible number of BITS used for packing & aborts. My old SYS5 source and the new one both #define BITS 12 in arclzw.c Does anyone know what the problem is? Charlie Lang whuts!chl
rcj@moss.ATT.COM (04/01/88)
In article <4042@whuts.UUCP> chl@whuts.UUCP (LANG) writes: }If I upload a file that was ARC'ed on the PC, the new version of ARC }will: } 1) trying arc v file.arc - complains about a bad header & aborts } } 2) trying arc x file.arc - complains about incompatible number } of BITS used for packing & aborts. This is a minor RTFM -- Read The Manual; although the manual is nebulous and only mentions filenames, in fact you *have* to use the 'i' option to get a truly PC-compatible ARC. So, the above should be: arc vi file.arc arc xi file.arc I just reversed the sense of the 'i' option in my source for the Unix ARC, so now it is IBM-PC-compatible by default and you have to specify 'i' to make it non-compatible (which I don't ever intend to do -- I usually use cpio and compress on Unix). The MAD Programmer -- 201-386-6409 (Cornet 232) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses ucbvax allegra ]!moss!rcj ...![ ihnp4 ucbvax akgua watmath ]!clyde!rcj
bill@iccdev.UUCP (Bill Gaines) (04/02/88)
In article <4042@whuts.UUCP>, chl@whuts.UUCP (LANG) writes: > > I don't know if anyone else has had the same problem I have, but the most > recent posting of the SYS5 sources for ARC are incompatible with last > years posting and also are incompatible with the MS-DOS version of ARC. > > Does anyone know what the problem is? > I just built the new posting. I had the same problem at first until I ran ARC with no parameters. It gave me a list of options. I noticed that the "-i" option mentioned dos compatibility. Sure enough, when I used the "-i" option, my DOS archives were fine. If you don't use the option, it assumes a unix archive with 14 character file names. -- Bill Gaines | UUCP: ...!gatech!ncrats!iccdev!bill Industrial Computer Coporation | Compuserve: 76317,770 Atlanta, Georgia 30328 | (404) 255-8336 | emanon
chl@whuts.UUCP (LANG) (04/04/88)
When I originally posted the message about the recent SYS5 sources for UNIX ARC being incompatible with the MS-DOS ARC, I had noticed the -i switch. This does make it compatible; however, why should this switch be needed. Aren't most people just using ARC to go between the PC and UNIX (and vice versa). Why force an extra command line argument which to me really makes it incompatible (OK! if not incompatible, its at least different and confusing). The resulting error messages complain about the number of BITS packed with. Not the filename lengths. Besides if you are arc'ing file names that are only 8 chars long on either UNIX or the PC, why should you need a switch to disable 14 char names. I would think that the switch would be better used as a requirement for only UNIX style files where one desires longer file names. Let's keep the normal arguments to ARC the same on the PC and UNIX so it is "compatible" in its truest sense. Any other feelings on this subject? P.S. Don't get me wrong! I appreciate the poster's effort in modifying and in posting the sources. Charlie Lang whuts!chl chl@whuts.UUCP
kieran@adds.newyork.NCR.COM (Joe Cabana) (04/09/88)
Not to confuse matters further but, we have a version of ARC running on 68020 Based machines that works very well. There don't seem to be any problems going back and forth to PC's. We will be posting the source for this sometime next week. (God and our phone lines willing). If you want any more information, send requests to me. J. E. Cabana kieran@adds.newyork.NCR.COM
adonis@tahoe.unr.edu (Derrick Hamner) (04/11/88)
I would really appreciate if someone could E-mail a copy of the source for ARC that handles squashing and will run on 4.3BSD. Thanks. -- Health is mearly the slowest possible rate at | Derrick Hamner which one can die. | adonis@tahoe.unr.edu