Hello!
> > > Well, if fish-like format was used, something like
> > >
> > > Nfile_name
> > > Dsome_unparsable_junk
> > > Prwxr--r--
> > >
> > > would be passed to midnight. Midnight would refuse to interpret date,
OK, I see it now. In fact, it can be even more useful for extfs than for
fish, bec
Hi!
> > Well, if fish-like format was used, something like
> >
> > Nfile_name
> > Dsome_unparsable_junk
> > Prwxr--r--
> >
> > would be passed to midnight. Midnight would refuse to interpret date,
>
> Well, that would be great, but it would implicate updating (and
> complicating, or even rewri
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 10:38:27AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Well, if fish-like format was used, something like
>
> Nfile_name
> Dsome_unparsable_junk
> Prwxr--r--
>
> would be passed to midnight. Midnight would refuse to interpret date,
Well, that would be great, but it would implicate upda
Hi!
> > Extfs should be fixed to use some sane format,
> > not ls -l... Fish has one quite reasonable...
>
> This is quite irrelevant here. If the format of the archive allows 15th
> month (which would be impossible if time_t was used) and the archiver is
> stupid enough to output the date as is
On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> However, this problem is with a buggy (or too pedantic?) program that
> cannot output the date properly even in the human readable form, let alone
> machine readable representation.
Yes, this is a problem. Do you have any good solution for this? I don't
Hello!
> > IIRC ST displays the Dec 31 2028. Actuall there is the date stamp like
> > 0x ( => year = 0x7f+1980, mon = 0xf, day = 0x1f ) and this is
> > exactly what is happening here. The only value that can be wrong here
> > (at least for unzip executables - studying its sources) is the month
Hi!
> > > Here is a small patch I needed to display one particular archive
> > > contents without errors. If it is convenient to neglect errors like weird
> > > dates then it can be usefull. Maybe even the other archive scripts should
> > > have such checks? What do you think?
> > ...
> > My su
Hi!
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > Here is a small patch I needed to display one particular archive
> > contents without errors. If it is convenient to neglect errors like weird
> > dates then it can be usefull. Maybe even the other archive scripts should
> > have such checks? Wh
Hello!
> Here is a small patch I needed to display one particular archive
> contents without errors. If it is convenient to neglect errors like weird
> dates then it can be usefull. Maybe even the other archive scripts should
> have such checks? What do you think?
I'm not going to apply such p
Hi!
Here is a small patch I needed to display one particular archive
contents without errors. If it is convenient to neglect errors like weird
dates then it can be usefull. Maybe even the other archive scripts should
have such checks? What do you think?
regards
STan
$ cvs -z3 diff uzip
Ind
10 matches
Mail list logo
