• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Standard OS X Compression format
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Standard OS X Compression format


  • Subject: Re: Standard OS X Compression format
  • From: Marcel Weiher <email@hidden>
  • Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 19:42:26 +0100

On Mittwoch, November 28, 2001, at 07:28 Uhr, Markus Hitter wrote:


Am Mittwoch den, 28. November 2001, um 16:14, schrieb Marcel Weiher:

On Friday, November 23, 2001, at 02:32 PM, Markus Hitter wrote:

With this flag set, tar would automatically include all ._file counterparts on UFS, NFS and similar filesystems. Would probably not too difficult to implement and a real advantage when archiving single files on UFS.

I volunteer for this effort...done!

And the result is: gnutar!

No.

Yes.

You have explicitely to add the ._file if you archive single files.

You're grasping at straws here, using a special case that is largely irrelevant and can be handled. If you want to 'archive' a single file, why not just macbinary it, or whatever? Anyway, it works fine for directories and that is 99+% of the usage I've seen over the last decade or so.

These 'special' names are special only to Carbon.

As the Finder uses them and the Finder in Mac OS is alomst as central as the kernel, they're essential.

I haven't said anything about wether they are 'essential' or not. The point is that they are not *special* to the BSD/Darwin layer, meanig that those layers will handle them just like any other file, including listing them in directories and archiving them.

Resource forks are likely to go away in a few years but Finder info support is already introduced into Cocoa - see NSOpenPanel.

So?

It seems to me that this would be a perfectly fine separate utility.

It seems it could be incorporated into tar without noteworthy drawbacks, too.

Go ahead, no-one is stopping you.

... but that would be feature-bloat.

Obviously, a lot of people would appreciate it. It's traditional usage of tar not only to back up but to transfer files between systems, too.

But not to convert/translate files. As another example of the numerous utilities that would be useful, I also don't see recode integrated with tar.

Marcel

--
Marcel Weiher Metaobject Software Technologies
email@hidden www.metaobject.com
Metaprogramming for the Graphic Arts. HOM, IDEAs, MetaAd etc.


References: 
 >Re: Standard OS X Compression format (From: Markus Hitter <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Standard OS X Compression format
  • Next by Date: Re: Equivalent to gethrtime()
  • Previous by thread: Re: Standard OS X Compression format
  • Next by thread: Re: Standard OS X Compression format
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread