On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 03:16:34PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 01:39:39PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > However, if you don't pass an argument to tarfs, it can assume that the tar > > file is what we call the underlying file of the translator. > > > > If you have a file /tmp/foo, you can put a translator on /tmp/foo while > > keeping the original file intact. All normal file accesses go to the > > translator though, the file is "hidden", it lies under the translator > > (underlying file). But the translator always gets a port to its underlying > > file, so it can access it. This case is what I wanted to illustrate. > > Is it possible to make that transparant? I.e. you can just cd into a > tarfile without using settrans first, because somethings detects the > tar.gz extensions and knows to run the tarfs translator on that. > > I've been thinking about two ways to do that: > 1) Set the translator field of every tarfile to /hurd/tarfs. > 2) Use some special `extensions translator' which automatically sets > translators for files with known extensions. 3) as 2, but triggered when you you have a "foo.tar.gz" file and try to open "foo". Probably useful when other programs recognise the .gz extension and try to open it as a zip file. (well, I suppose the dir/file distinction would protect foo.tar.gz files, but plain foo.gz files would still be vulnerable)
> I don't know if there are other ways to do it. I think it's nice to have > this feature. It looks a bit like how midnight commander (or the old > non-free norton commander for dos) handles tar (or zip) files. More important than if you *can* make it transparent, is if you *want* to make it transparent. But I think it's definetely worth implimenting. -- Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
