Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 08:19:11PM +0000, 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 pax does
>>> it but unzoo does ? Which is a better approach.
>>>
>> If you could make pax(1) support unzooing then you could deliver a
>> /bin/unzoo shell script that prints an error message telling you to use
>> pax(1) :)
>>
>
> 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 desirable for a number of reasons.) I know of at
*least* two possible such implementations, including yours.
-- Garrett
