Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 13:22:41 +0200 (IST) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: Juan Manuel Guerrero cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: 2 suggestions for djtar In-Reply-To: <5081AB53B41@HRZ1.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Juan Manuel Guerrero wrote: > 1) A couple of days ago, Bruno Haible suggested to modify > djtar in such a way that it always extracts batch files with > DOS-style EOL. I do not know if such a "silent" EOL convertion > is welcome at all and I know that this will not really solve > the problem, but IMHO it is a nice feature that can be easily > implemented and that may be of some use. The code I suggest in > this patch consideres every file having as last extension ".bat" > as batch file. Before checking for ".bat" the extension is > converted to lower case. The LF -> CRLF convertion is done > automatically. It is okay to add such a feature, but the implementation is not right, IMHO: if a .bat file already has CR-LF style EOLs (most of them do), djtar might corrupt it. To be useful, this option should only convert batch files that have Unix-style LF-only EOLs. (Yes, I know that djtar examines the first block of the file to decide whether it has Unix-style EOLs. However, for a feature that is automatically turned on and cannot be turned off, this is not safe enough, because the block size is small. If this feature is made optional, then I think it will be okay to use the implementation you suggest.) Btw, does anyone know whether 4DOS groks Unix style EOLs in its *.btm files? If not, they should be converted as well.