🚀 go-pugleaf

<mbbr@mighty.co.za> wrote in message
news:1147432609.232655.191620@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dickless Davie tholen@antispam.ham the irrelevant Ignoranus whined and
> tholed:
> > Heiko Nitzsche writes:
> >
> > >> Looks like zip failed in this instance.  I'm using
> > >> Zip 2.0.1 (Sept 18th 1993).  Is this a known bug that has been fixed
> > >> in a more recent version?  Is the bug related to the size of the
file?
> > >> Nowhere near the 2 GB limit.
> >
> > > This version is ancient.
> >
> > Yes, I am aware that the version is old.  I've been concerned about
> > backward compatibility.  I've read about support for one particular
> > compression method being removed from more recent versions, and I'd
> > like to avoid a situation where I'm unable to decompress an existing
> > zip archive.
> >
> > > Get Zip 2.31 from http://www.info-zip.org/
> > > and Unzip 5.52 as well. Since your version a lot of issues
> > > have been fixed.
> >
> > The version numbers have also been confusing.  For example, hobbes has
> > something described as "Info-ZIP's Zip 5.51", but the associated file
> > is named zip23x2.zip, making it appear to be version 2.3, not 5.51.
> >
> > > ftp://ftp.info-zip.org/pub/infozip/OS2/zip231c.zip
> > > ftp://ftp.info-zip.org/pub/infozip/OS2/unz552.exe
> >
> > Which build are these?  32-bit executables?  16-bit executables?
> > Combined 16/32-bit executables?  With or without encryption?  Too
> > many versions!
>
> Too many notes, Salieri!
>

Actually, that was said to Mozart, not Salieri.