20 Jul
2020
20 Jul
'20
11:56 p.m.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:54 AM Clem Cole <clemc(a)ccc.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 1:25 PM Will Senn <will.senn(a)gmail.com> wrote:
There's various 'unshar' programs, but they are all just restricted
versions of the shell because of the wide diversity of 'shar'
implementation... uuencoded compressed tar balls added another layer to
this mess as well :)
Warner
My questions for y'all are how would you go
about doing this? Use vi to
delete everything through the ==== cut here line?
Yep
In my world, if I screw something up, it's
15 seconds to run a restore
script in my simh directory and I can try again, so my level of concern for
a mistake is pretty low. If I was doing this in 1980, on real hardware, I
would have had many concerns, as I'm sure some of y'all can remember, how
did you prepare and protect yourselves so a patch was successful.
Run an incremental backup and/or copy the files you new you we were
messing with. The good news was that patch makes backups.
BTW, I thought .shar was an archive format, so when I saw the patch was a
shar file,
It was so of. It was a way to send files around that people could easily
execute and you new would work through 7-bit based email which is all the
SMTP guaranteed in the early days. Yeh but .. uucp was 8 yep. But some
of the legs of the USENET were luck to be based on Arpanet site, which
might have had a mailer running BITNET. When shar was created the 'least
needed' style assumptions were used. As it was it was often that people
put tarballs, then compressed them and then uuencoded them inside. Often a
space savings and made it easier -> compressed tar was pretty good, and
even with the 3 8-bit chars as 4 6-bit chars of uuencode it will worked out
well in practice.