----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Michael A Chase" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 02:04 Subject: Re: [PATCH]Package extention recognition (revision 1)
> On Fri, 2002-01-25 at 20:44, Michael A Chase wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > ".bz2" only 'protects' WinZip users until WinZip starts handling bzip2 > > files. That may never happen, but ".cwp" (or ".rpm" or ".deb") isn't > > vulnerable to WinZip improvements. > > .cwp is hardly protection, it's just as, or more, vulnerable to Winzip > improvements. .deb and .rpm are more resilient, but hardly beyond access > for Winzip. > > > > > The current un-patched code leaves off ".tar" inadvertently. > > > > > > > I'll apply the lot if you'll > > > 1) cleanup the strduping, > > > > The strdup() was in one of the lines I didn't change. I'll change it. > > While I'm at it, I'll look for other strdup() calls in the file and change > > them as well. > > There shouldn't be any strdups elsewhere, I recall now why I hadn't > changed fromcwd.cc's strdup calls - because the code was commented out. > Having actually looked closely at this, I'm inclined to add a FIXME line > rather than your patch - not because your code is wrong, but because the > structs you are operating on are gone! (There's no info struct, and no > trust enum any more...). I had originally only touched it to make sure the additional allowed archive extensions wouldn't break the code. There's already a FIXME. Maybe it should be replaced with something that says the structures no longer exist. Unless the right answer is to just delete the whole mess. // Reinstate this FIXME: to // Reinstate this FIXME: Use new classes in place of obsolete structures. > > > 2) Answer my query about filemanip. > > > > The '-' lines below are from the unpatched filemanip.cc. Notice the ';' at > > the end of the 'if' lines. That causes the return after the ".tar.gz" 'if' > > statement to always be executed. As a result, the test for ".tar" never > > gets executed. > > Doh!. > > > My original patch (which I forgot to attach to the first message) included a > > test for ".cwp" to test the waters. Should I add it back? If I do, should > > I also add ".rpm", and ".deb"? > > No, I think bz2 will last us until .deb or rpm is ready. And we > shouldn't try to read something we can't :]. However your patch still > looks wrong because it removes the .tar support - which costs us nothing > to have, and may be useful for someone :}. The second patch left out ".tar" because it wasn't being executed. I'll put it back. -- Mac :}) ** I normally forward private questions to the appropriate mail list. ** Give a hobbit a fish and he eats fish for a day. Give a hobbit a ring and he eats fish for an age.