Re: What's wrong with this call to zip?
Re: What's wrong with this call to zip?
- Subject: Re: What's wrong with this call to zip?
- From: Axel Luttgens <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:34:08 +0100
Le 27 févr. 08 à 14:58, Philip Aker a écrit :
On 08-02-27, at 05:14, Axel Luttgens wrote:
That said, ditto and zip should work equally well for your purpose.
It's not entirely clear from the zip man page whether or not it
handles resource forks on Mac OS X. With ditto, one has to specify
that resource forks be ignored.
Hello Philip,
You sure have noticed my rather prudent phrasing.
Unless I'm overlooking a crucial point, as far as
archiving .rtfd, .pages or such items for the purpose of saving the
data and/or passing it to others, zip should be able to do the work.
In fact, I was more especially interested in Yvan's problem with
regards to communicating valid paths to shell commands to be performed
through "do shell script" than to make one's market amongst all
available commands.
But you are right, I tend to be a bit lost with the quick evolution
(or stagnation) of the various archival commands available under Mac
OS X.
Speaking about ditto, remember the -rsrcFork, then the -rsrc option
for requesting resource forks to be saved; then, suddenly, the default
was to have resource forks archived, and -norsrc was needed to avoid
such a behavior. Add to this the introduction of extended attributes...
So, just to be sure, and thanks to your comment, I've had a quick look
at zip's current source code (as published on Apple's darwinsource).
Unless I'm wrong, zip is just plain unaware of resource forks (and
don't even think about extended attributes); quick testings tend to
confirm this.
Although there are remarks about "MacOS" options, I believe they
refer to some application that will only run in Classic.
And this is confirmed by the source code: zip is compiled with the
unix flavor, without any reference to Mac-specific attributes at all.
Moreover, the resource (and data) fork-related code is unchanged since
the good old days of Mac OS 9 (at best).
So, for the sake of generality, it seems that ditto is currently the
best choice as far as the creation of zip archives is concerned (it
even seems to be the one still used by Archive Utility.app, formerly
known as the BomarchiveHelper).
Thanks for your comment,
Axel
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
AppleScript-Users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
Archives: http://lists.apple.com/archives/applescript-users
This email sent to email@hidden