From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 13 22:51:36 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46B8A16A46D; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:51:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from weak.local (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02F2113C4EE; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:51:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <478A95F2.1070709@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:51:30 +0100 From: Kris Kennaway User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Kientzle References: <200801080800.m08806jI012963@repoman.freebsd.org> <478A8FFE.8080602@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <478A8FFE.8080602@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, Dag-Erling Smorgrav Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/unzip Makefile unzip.1 unzip.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:51:36 -0000 Tim Kientzle wrote: > Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: >> Welcome unzip(1), ... can handle all but four of the 991 zip files >> (including >> jar files) I was able to identify in the ports tree. The remaining >> four >> are two self-extracting archives and two which have garbage >> preceding the >> first local header. This limitation is a feature of libarchive(3) >> which >> I am currently working to resolve. > > Impressive, indeed. > > Could you identify those four files? I want to take a look > myself and see if one of the odd approaches I've been > ruminating about might work. > > Of course, giving those four ports a build-time dependency > on the Info-Zip version is arguably the right approach > in any case. That would probably be undesirable because it would mean having to special case things in the ports tree and/or duplicate code. Kris