On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 07:24:46PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 06:08:25PM +0000, Adam Olsen wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 05:02:52PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 03:34:02PM +0000, Adam Olsen wrote: > > > > 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 think letting the translator do it is the Right Way. Implementing gzip > > > in every application is useless anyhow IMHO. So I think we should fix > > > the apps. :) > > > > There's two ways for an app to support gzipped files: > > a) within the app itself, by recognising files with a .gz extension > > b) using a translator > > > > You can't use the translator *all* the time, because you may want to > > manipulate the gzipped file itself. And doing it in the app has to be > > duplicated for every app. Therefore there IS no "right way". Do > > whatever is most convenient. > > You are right. But it is still possible in the tarfs case. If you want > to manipulate the file, you edit foo.tar. If you want the directory > tree, it's foo.tar/.
Yeah, but I was actually thinking about gzipped files (as I'm not likely to keep an uncompressed tar around) > > > > 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. > > > > > > I think there are a lot of people who will use it. Just think about it: > > > download a tarball, cd into it, build the program and install it. With > > > or without the option of storing the changes in the tarball itself (You > > > could make some kind of shadowfs thing). People who dislike it can > > > always turn it off, so that's no problem. We should also be sure to make > > > it secure. > > > > I agree. Btw, naming a non-gzipped file .gz breaks opening them with > > vim, and presumably every other app that already supports gzipped > > files. Being compatable is very important. > > That's just stupid, if they can't uncompress the file they should show > the raw data IMHO. But as usual people don't think like I do and being > compatible is indeed important. But we still can use it in the tarfs > case I think. "compatable? Why would somebody want to obfuscate the filenames? Opening gzipped files is just a hack anyway." We can start with the bug reports after we have real code, not just some theoretical ideas :) -- Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
