🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3280@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
>In article <2108@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> lim@cluster.cs.su.oz.au (Hong Lip Lim) writes:
>
>| One way of course is to ensure that the UNIX files do not contain
>| multiple dots in their names. But if that is not possible,
>| is there an improved version of the lharc program on the PC
>| that does not have this problem?
>
>  There is no problem with lharc, the problem is that DOS can't accept
>reasonable filenames. 
 ^^^^^^^^^^
U*IX will accept any character in filenames; some versions even accept
8-bit ascii. Do you think thats reasonable?
Also here, if an archive is going to be spread over different machines, 
the creator of it has to keep portability into his mind.
On the other hand, the portable archiver programs should be aware of
portability issues by doing the right conversions and pass a correct
filename to the OS.

>The solution is to extract to stdout and redirect
>to a file with a restricted DOS name.
This will only work for text files, not binarys.

>  No version of lharc can solve this, because information must be lost,
>and it's up to you to decide on a name mapping.

Not if I didn't create the archive.

The DOS versions of the portable arc programs should do the remapping 
to DOS naming restrictions.
ZOO can do this.
ARC and LHARC can't.
I am curious what ZIP will do...

--
     _ _ 
    / U |         Rob Luursema, Philips Information Systems Apeldoorn 
   /__ <                         robl@idca.tds.philips.nl
  88  |_\     "The trouble with everyone is that they generalize too much"