Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 16:30:18 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
cc: djgpp workers list <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: Another wrong way to unzip DJGPP found
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.93.990927133105.21521E-100000@acp3bf>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990927162801.10338C-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers 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, 27 Sep 1999, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

> It was then found that this unpacker automatically *renames* directories
> whenever a directory of that already exists. I.e. you get 'info', 'info1',
> 'info2', etc. directories, in %DJDIR%, instead of a single one. 
> 
> Maybe this will have to be added to README.1st as another possible gotcha
> to watch out for. 

It seems to me that a single rarely-used unpacker is not a reason good 
enough to mention it in README.1ST.  There's a general warning there to 
make sure the files are unzipped into the same directory tree.

But I will certainly add this to the FAQ, thanks for investigating this.