jes@mbio.med.upenn.edu (Joe Smith) (08/30/89)
Recently, someone asserted that tar archives aren't a suitable distribution format because they aren't understood by every Unix. Given some reasonable constraints of their contents (ascii files, names < 14 chars), is this true? Doesn't every Unix have tar? I know there has been some (d)evolution of tar, but aren't simple archives still portable? With the availability of GNU tar (and others ?) which are portable enough to run on other OS's, I found the assertion hard to believe, but I couldn't refute it. <Joe -- Joe Smith University of Pennsylvania jes@mbio.med.upenn.edu Dept. of Biochemistry and Biophysics (215) 898-8348 Philadelphia, PA 19104-6059
perry@ccssrv.UUCP (Perry Hutchison) (08/31/89)
In article <JES.89Aug30102233@mbio.med.upenn.edu> jes@mbio.med.upenn.edu (Joe Smith) writes: > Doesn't every Unix have tar? I no longer have the manuals, but as I recall V6 did not, and it may still be in use at a few sites. An old V7 manual here does include tar(1), so it does go back at least that far.
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (08/31/89)
In article <JES.89Aug30102233@mbio.med.upenn.edu> jes@mbio.med.upenn.edu (Joe Smith) writes: >Recently, someone asserted that tar archives aren't a suitable >distribution format because they aren't understood by every Unix. "tar" archives may not be suitable, but it's not because "tar" is unavailable. Every AT&T UNIX release since 7th Edition (around 1978) has included some version of "tar"; it's "cpio" that may not exist everywhere (particularly 4.2BSD-based systems).
scott@bbxeng.UUCP (Engineering) (08/31/89)
In article <10889@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <JES.89Aug30102233@mbio.med.upenn.edu> jes@mbio.med.upenn.edu (Joe Smith) writes: >>Recently, someone asserted that tar archives aren't a suitable >>distribution format because they aren't understood by every Unix. > >"tar" archives may not be suitable, but it's not because "tar" is >unavailable. Every AT&T UNIX release since 7th Edition (around 1978) >has included some version of "tar"; it's "cpio" that may not exist >everywhere (particularly 4.2BSD-based systems). That's not entirely correct. I've seen some 3b2 machines without tar. We still ship product for the 3b2 in cpio format because of this. (Note: 3b2 is an AT&T box). -- --------------------------------------- Scott Amspoker Basis International, Albuquerque, NM 505-345-5232
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (09/01/89)
>Recently, someone asserted that tar archives aren't a suitable >distribution format because they aren't understood by every Unix. > >Given some reasonable constraints of their contents (ascii files, >names < 14 chars), is this true? Doesn't every Unix have tar? Every version of UNIX AT&T has shipped as a source code porting base has, to the best of my knowledge, had "tar". I remember one case where it was claimed that a vendor offering a binary version built from one of those AT&T source versions had removed "tar", but hopefully that vendor was tarred and feathered for that, and served as an example to others.
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (09/01/89)
In article <216@bbxeng.UUCP> scott@bbxeng.UUCP (Scott-Engineering) writes: >That's not entirely correct. I've seen some 3b2 machines without tar. >We still ship product for the 3b2 in cpio format because of this. It's always possible for the vendor to remove "tar", or for the system administrator to remove it or fail to install it, etc. It's part of the 3B2 master source distribution from AT&T, however. (Or at least it has been on the distributions we've received; there have been many UNIX releases!) You can pretty much count on "cpio" existing on 3B2s, and also on the machines not being able to read 1/2" magtape! You can pretty much count on "cpio" NOT being available on commercial Berkeley-based systems, although that's gradually changing. When I ship my UNIX System V emulation for 4.nBSD, the first file on the tape is normally an executable "cpio", so the rest of the tape can be read. Of course that requires some sort of UNIX licensing (which I have to verify before shipment).
mje@olsa99.UUCP (Mark J Elkins) (09/01/89)
From article <216@bbxeng.UUCP>, by scott@bbxeng.UUCP (Engineering): > In article <10889@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: > >In article <JES.89Aug30102233@mbio.med.upenn.edu> jes@mbio.med.upenn.edu (Joe Smith) writes: > >>Recently, someone asserted that tar archives aren't a suitable > >>distribution format because they aren't understood by every Unix. > > > >"tar" archives may not be suitable, but it's not because "tar" is > >unavailable. Every AT&T UNIX release since 7th Edition (around 1978) > >has included some version of "tar"; it's "cpio" that may not exist > >everywhere (particularly 4.2BSD-based systems). > > That's not entirely correct. I've seen some 3b2 machines without tar. > We still ship product for the 3b2 in cpio format because of this. > (Note: 3b2 is an AT&T box). Thats quite true! Back in the days of 3b2 300/310/400, Tar is (was) only on a 3B2 if you had a Tape Streamer (the old 23 Mb one) - theory being - all software was supplied on "floppy's with files systems." CPIO was used to "pass" the info onto the AT+T. You got "tar" as part of the "Cartridge Tape Utilities" floppy. Maybe part of the campaign to oust "tar" and bring in "cpio". Who cares - I use "afio". (Did anyone fix the cpio -ic Bug ??? ("Portable" ascii headers) - when restoring files with numeric file names (eg /usr/lib/terminfo) - You sometimes get "End of Media"...) -- /"""\ Mark J Elkins, Olivetti Africa, Unix Software Support |o.o| UUCP: {ddsw1 | olgb1 | olnl1} !olsa99!mje \_=_/ mje@olsa99.UUCP (mje@olsa99.uunet) #define DISCLAMER
kevin@msa3b.UUCP (Kevin P. Kleinfelter) (09/01/89)
I find it MOST interesting to read that ALL machines have tar. I have an AT&T 3B2, with SYSV R3.2.1. It was purchased from, configured by, and delivered by AT&T. There is no tar. Tar is documented in the manual, but not delivered. Tar is listed as a "tape utility." 3B2s are delivered with a "Streaming Tape" and "streaming tape utilities." No "tape drive" means "no tape drive utilities" is the only explanation I have ever received. What is really cute, is that when I went to download GNU tar from osu-cis (a wonderful archive site!), I discovered that tar was only available in tar format! (Now why would I want tar if I already have tar.) I wrote a quick un-tar program, so I could use it. I have installed packages on my 3B2 which first install a tar, and then use tar to install the rest of the packate, so there must be other 3B2s without tar. -- Kevin Kleinfelter @ Management Science America, Inc (404) 239-2347 gatech!nanovx!msa3b!kevin
jmm@eci386.UUCP (09/02/89)
In article <10904@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: +In article <216@bbxeng.UUCP> scott@bbxeng.UUCP (Scott-Engineering) writes: +>That's not entirely correct. I've seen some 3b2 machines without tar. +>We still ship product for the 3b2 in cpio format because of this. + +It's always possible for the vendor to remove "tar", or for the system +administrator to remove it or fail to install it, etc. It's part of +the 3B2 master source distribution from AT&T, however. (Or at least it +has been on the distributions we've received; there have been many UNIX +releases!) + [...] It is also possible (and I've seen in more than one circumstance) for the vendor to put tar in /etc instead of in /bin or /usr/bin - i.e. in the path for root (usually) but for no-one else. Nobody except root would ever want to use tar of course... :-) -- "Software and cathedrals are much the same - | John Macdonald first we build them, then we pray" (Sam Redwine) | jmm@eci386
daveh@marob.masa.com (Dave Hammond) (09/02/89)
In article <216@bbxeng.UUCP> scott@bbxeng.UUCP (Scott-Engineering) writes: > >"tar" archives may not be suitable, but it's not because "tar" is > >unavailable. >That's not entirely correct. I've seen some 3b2 machines without tar. If I recall correctly, tar was located in /etc on the last 3B2 I worked on. Since it was out of my usual PATH it initially appeared unavailable. -- Dave Hammond daveh@marob.masa.com
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (09/02/89)
>I no longer have the manuals, but as I recall V6 did not, and it may still be >in use at a few sites. It didn't have "tar", but I've written off V6 sites; absent a bunch of later improvements (the "50 changes", the "Phototypesetter - Version 7" compiler and C libraries), and some additional compatibility work, V6 can't run all programs written to the V7 interface (including programs using such utterly exotic system services as "stat" and "fstat" - yes, they're different between the two systems), much less the interfaces offered by more modern UNIXes.
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (09/02/89)
>That's not entirely correct. I've seen some 3b2 machines without tar. >We still ship product for the 3b2 in cpio format because of this. >(Note: 3b2 is an AT&T box). Yes, but "tar" *is* in the AT&T S5 source releases; some turkey probably decided to leave it out of the binary release in question for the 3B2.
matt@iquery.UUCP (Matt Reedy) (09/02/89)
In article <216@bbxeng.UUCP>, scott@bbxeng.UUCP (Engineering) writes: > > That's not entirely correct. I've seen some 3b2 machines without tar. > We still ship product for the 3b2 in cpio format because of this. > (Note: 3b2 is an AT&T box). > We encountered the "missing tar" problem in shipping our 3B2 software also, but found that tar is hiding in the /etc directory on 3B2's. AT&T must now figure tar is a superuser only function (since /etc is included in the path of the root/su login). But any user can invoke tar by simply saying /etc/tar xv etc.etc. matt --- Matthew Reedy UUCP: gatech!petro!iquery!matt Programmed Intelligence Corp. 400 N Loop 1604 E, Suite 330 San Antonio, TX 78232 (512) 490 6684 Fax: (512) 490-3590
mike@cochise (09/04/89)
re: the missing tar problem: just the other day, a customer was asking to transfer some files from an apollo DN ???? to our machine. No problem, thought I, bring us a tar-tape and we'll read it. well, the apollo in question had no tar?!? so it seems that at&t aren't the only one's w/o tar. cheers -- Mike Schroeder PCS-Mail: msc DOMAIN: msc@cochise.pcs.de (EUR) or msc@cochise.pcs.com (US) BANG: ..unido!pcsbst!msc (EUR) or ..pyramid!pcsbst!msc (US)
scott@bbxeng.UUCP (Engineering) (09/05/89)
In article <2413@auspex.auspex.com> guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes: > > >That's not entirely correct. I've seen some 3b2 machines without tar. > >We still ship product for the 3b2 in cpio format because of this. > >(Note: 3b2 is an AT&T box). > >Yes, but "tar" *is* in the AT&T S5 source releases; some turkey probably >decided to leave it out of the binary release in question for the 3B2. I thought I'd share a little amusing (?) story with you (since I wrote the original quote above). Not long after I posted that message we got a call from one of our 3B2 customers. We forgot to include the special 3B2 instructions with our product (which tell the customer to use cpio). So the customer followed the default instructions in our manual telling him to use tar. Well, naturally tar did not work on a cpio disk (however, tar *was* present on his 3B2). To make a long story short, at one point he called AT&T (or whoever is responsible for the 3B2) and asked them if something was wrong with tar. The answer he got says that the 3B2 tar is not necessarily compatible with the industry standard tar and that they don't support it. Of course, I heard this second hand so I can't say for sure what was said, but it reaffirms my fear that tar is not safe on a 3B2. heard -- --------------------------------------- Scott Amspoker Basis International, Albuquerque, NM 505-345-5232
lyndon@auvax.uucp (Lyndon Nerenberg) (09/07/89)
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes: > I remember one case where >it was claimed that a vendor offering a binary version built from one of >those AT&T source versions had removed "tar", but hopefully that vendor >was tarred and feathered for that, and served as an example to others. ^^^ How, if they didn't ship the code ? :-) What I really like is the way AT&T is attempting to eliminate tar by breaking all the option processing: for no good reason, options have to be in a specific order. I also love the arbitrary 10K block limit enforced by tar when writing tapes. Of course, AT&T's 9 track support is so brain- dead that this should be considered a feature. Lyndon Nerenberg VE6BBM / Computing Services / Athabasca University {alberta,decwrl,lsuc}!atha!lyndon || lyndon@cs.AthabascaU.CA CTIX-USERS has moved to: ctix-users[-request]@cs.AthabascaU.CA
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (09/07/89)
>The answer he got says that the 3B2 tar is not necessarily compatible >with the industry standard tar... Sounds like another turkey - the S5R3 "tar" is minimally changed from the V7 one, so unless they consider some "tar" other than the one they themselves put out 10 years ago to be "the industry standard tar" I have no idea what they're talking about. Even the BSD "tar" isn't massively changed from the V7 one (at least not externally, although later versions have been somewhat optimized internally) - the default block size is different, but you can override that on the command line, and it puts out entries for directories as well as files, but 1) you can tell it not to with the "o" flag and 2) those entries don't seem to do anything to older "tar"s other than cause some annoying warnings to be printed out (the directory modes aren't set from the "tar" file, but that's life.