From: Earle Martin Date: 11:04 on 27 Sep 2007 Subject: Opening tarballs in Mac OS X You may have a tarball you wish to open, named, say, Foo-Bar-0.1.tar.gz. If you double-click it, it expands to a folder called, predictably, Foo-Bar-0.1. However, if you then double-click it again (without removing the first expanded folder), it produces a folder called... Foo-Bar-0.2. Again? Foo-Bar-0.3. Yes, Mac OS X has decided to increment the version numbers on your downloaded software. In the old Mac OS, you'd get folders called "Copy of Foo-Bar-0.1" and "Copy 2 of Foo-Bar-0.1", etc. Whoever replaced this behavior with the current braindead one is a goddamn moron.
From: Andy Armstrong Date: 19:28 on 27 Sep 2007 Subject: Re: Opening tarballs in Mac OS X On 27 Sep 2007, at 11:04, Earle Martin wrote: > In the old Mac OS, you'd get folders called "Copy of Foo-Bar-0.1" and > "Copy 2 of Foo-Bar-0.1", etc. Whoever replaced this behavior with the > current braindead one is a goddamn moron. Still does when you copy files. The borkheaded logic is somewhere in the archive expanding doober. *but* WTF aren't you just using tar zxf Foo-Bar-0.1.tar.gz ? :)
From: Earle Martin Date: 10:51 on 28 Sep 2007 Subject: Re: Opening tarballs in Mac OS X On 27/09/2007, Andy Armstrong <andy@xxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > *but* WTF aren't you just using tar zxf Foo-Bar-0.1.tar.gz ? :) I'm glad you put a smiley there, otherwise I wouldn't have known you were trolling.
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 00:49 on 28 Sep 2007 Subject: Re: Opening tarballs in Mac OS X * Earle Martin <hates-software@xxxxxxxx.xxx> [2007-09-27 12:10]: > However, if you then double-click it again (without removing > the first expanded folder), it produces a folder called... > Foo-Bar-0.2. Again? Foo-Bar-0.3. Yes, Mac OS X has decided to > increment the version numbers on your downloaded software. Firefox used to do the same if you unwittingly re-downloaded a file to the same location -- only instead of going from Foo-Bar-0.1.tar.gz to Foo-Bar-0.2.tar.gz etc, it would instead save to Foo-Bar-1.1.tar.gz, Foo-Bar-2.1.tar.gz etc. Yes. Really! Thankfully, as I just discovered when trying to confirm, 2.0 seems to do something vaguely saner (you now get dupes named Foo-Bar-0.1(2).tar.gz etc). That's still hateful (at the very least it could delimit the counter with characters that don't need escaping in the shell), but at least it's not completely braindead. Regards,
From: Chris Devers Date: 02:18 on 28 Sep 2007 Subject: Re: Opening tarballs in Mac OS X On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Earle Martin wrote: > You may have a tarball you wish to open, named, say, > Foo-Bar-0.1.tar.gz. If you double-click it, it expands to a folder > called, predictably, Foo-Bar-0.1. However, if you then double-click it > again (without removing the first expanded folder), it produces a > folder called... Foo-Bar-0.2. Again? Foo-Bar-0.3. Yes, Mac OS X has > decided to increment the version numbers on your downloaded software. I'm pretty sure this is a general Finder behavior. In Safari, download a file "foo.txt" Then download it again, you should get "foo-1.txt". In general, it works okay, because [a] it still alphabetizes in a reasonably sensible order, which "copy of foo.txt" wouldn't, and [b] it doesn't muck with the file ending the way "foo.txt 1" would. So it's a compromise, albeit an imperfect one. But as previously noted, why not just use "tar -zxf foo.tgz"?
From: Peter da Silva Date: 04:07 on 29 Sep 2007 Subject: Re: Opening tarballs in Mac OS X On 27-Sep-2007, at 05:04, Earle Martin wrote: > In the old Mac OS, you'd get folders called "Copy of Foo-Bar-0.1" and > "Copy 2 of Foo-Bar-0.1", etc. You did? I didn't, I got a message that aladdin expander (or whatever it was called this week) didn't know what the fuck a .tar.gz was. Personally, I find both behaviors hateful. If you unpack an archive and it's already been unpacked you should not end up with a duplicate copy. I also find the fact that Safari and BOMarchiver both set the created AND modified times of downloaded or unpacked files to whatever random crap the webserver claimed, when one or the other (I care not which at this point) should be set to the time you downloaded it (that's the date it was created on MY computer, and it's certainly the time it was last modified on MY computer, and setting BOTH times to some time in 1970 is DEFINITELY wrong, even if that's what the webserver said... (yes, I know why it's some time in 1970, nobody explain that please)
From: Earle Martin Date: 18:26 on 29 Sep 2007 Subject: Re: Opening tarballs in Mac OS X On 29/09/2007, Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > If you unpack an archive and it's already been unpacked > you should not end up with a duplicate copy. Sometimes you want one. It should at least ask (and let you set a permanent preference if you prefer one way over the other).
Generated at 10:26 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi