Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 07:16:26 +0200 (MET DST) From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: chuckr@glue.umd.edu (Chuck Robey) Cc: darrylo@hpnmhjw.sr.hp.com, FreeBSD-Ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: using tar Message-ID: <199608120516.HAA03287@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.95.960811151157.10084B-100000@thurston.eng.umd.edu> from Chuck Robey at "Aug 11, 96 03:12:48 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Chuck Robey wrote: > > I don't know if I'd call it better, but it does have the optional > > advantage of being easy to filter/limit the files being copied... > Tar does that same thing, on the command line without sed. More comments > on why it's better ? Not really, since find allows for a much finer control about its selection. I occasionally use both, tar and cpio (since our tar does also handle `weird' i-nodes), and i think it's just the flexibility of find that makes me prefer cpio sometimes. For example, the following could only be handled by (unportable) GNU tar extensions while it will work on any Unix system this way: find . \( -name CVS -prune \) -o -print | cpio -dump /dst/dir (It excludes the CVS subdirs from being copied.) -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199608120516.HAA03287>