retard wrote:
The files inside the .zip won't run because one particular Mr. Bright
doesn't set the +x flag on. It's not a fault of Linux if he is using
retarded Windows version of the zip packager. It's easy to fix, he just
doesn't care. The zip works just fine even on a 64-bit system if the 32-
bit libraries have been installed.
Hey retard, while I enjoy reading a lot of the controversy that you like
to create on this NG, sorry, on this occasion I think you are being
somewhat unfair towards one particular person here.
My understanding is that .zip files are traditionally a DOS (originally
PKZIP) then come Windows thing then come Unix available.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZIP_%28file_format%29
Being so, .zip files do not inherently/traditionally support recording
Unix file permissions such as +x within the archive. If such facilities
exist today in Unix .zip utilities (and I am unaware of the same) these
would have to be extensions over and above what .zip files are commonly
understood to support given the DOS/PKZIP history of this file format.
Recording of Unix file permissions in archives is traditionally achieved
with .tar files (and compressed variants) as I am sure you are well aware.
When downloading archive from the net, I look for .zip files if wanting
to install on Windows and .tar or .tar.gz if wanting to install on
Unixes. I imagine that most Unix-aware folks would do the same.
In this instance I think you should be asking that archives be available
in both .tar and .zip variants for the respective platforms and not
accusing a certain somebody of being delinquent in not setting a +x flag
on a file in a .zip file.
Cheers
Justin Johansson
