13 Dec
2011
13 Dec
'11
4:51 p.m.
On 13 December 2011 05:22, Sean Conner <spc at conman.org> wrote:
It was thus said that the Great Liam Proven once
stated:
What I expect, want and demand:
It unpacks to the name(s) of the file(s) [and folders] in the archive
and leaves the original archive the fsck alone.
In my early Linux days, I was /very/ annoyed several times when Gunzip
cheerfully *removed the archive I told it to unpack*. This is
*absolutely* unacceptable to my mind.
--
Liam Proven ? Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
On 12 December 2011 22:43, Mouse <mouse at
rodents-montreal.org> wrote:
*Shudder*
Your acceptable peculiarity is my hated misfeature.
?gunzip will create a file based on the filename but without the ".gz"
extension. ?There are only a few choices I see for gunzip handing this: There are
certain commands I've come across that handles extentions
poorly. ?Like gunzip:
[spc]lucy:/tmp>mv x-grey.tar.gz
x-grey.tar.foo
[spc]lucy:/tmp>gunzip x-grey.tar.foo
gunzip: x-grey.tar.foo: unknown suffix -- ignored
[spc]lucy:/tmp>
Yes. ?Annoying, but understandable - without the .gz on there, how is
it to know what file to put the result in?