search

Godzil / theunarchiver

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/theunarchiver
Other
0 stars 0 forks source link

Only 987 files appear out of 590816 #700

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
On a 822 MB file, The Archive Browser says: "Compressed using Zip from 2,62 MB 
to 822 MB (31356.4%)."

It also says "Contains 987 files", which is not true because the ZIP file 
actually contains 590816 files. The Archive Browser only extracts 987 of these 
files, while "unzip" in the command line extracts all of them. 

File on which the issue arises is here: 
http://www.mwdeem.rice.edu/files/pcod2.zip

Original issue reported on code.google.com by fxcoud...@gmail.com on 4 Sep 2013 at 3:11

Attachments:

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
[deleted comment]
GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
"The Unarchiver" has the same bug. Mac OS 10.8.4's native Archive Utility works 
nicely.

Original comment by fxcoud...@gmail.com on 4 Sep 2013 at 3:32

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
This seems to be the same as issue 681. Also, that means the file is actually 
broken, and it should be reported to whatever program created it. (It's trying 
to store more than 65536 files in a Zip without using Zip64 extensions, which 
will produce an invalid file.)

I've tried to add workarounds to detect and handle broken files like these. I 
don't know how well The Archive Browser will handle an archive with that many 
files, though... I don't dare test.

Original comment by paracel...@gmail.com on 5 Sep 2013 at 9:34

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
As I said, Mac OS X Archive Utility handles it fine, so it means that TU is not 
a drop-in replacement for AU at the moment.

Original comment by fxcoud...@gmail.com on 5 Sep 2013 at 9:51

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
And as I said, I've added workarounds and it should work now, but the file is 
broken and should be reported.

Original comment by paracel...@gmail.com on 5 Sep 2013 at 9:53

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
If the format is indeed invalid, and you aren't working around it, an error 
message would be useful — the current behavior basically amounts to data 
loss, and gave me a real fright when I first experienced it.

Original comment by nriley on 5 Sep 2013 at 9:54

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
(Whoops, sorry about that, did not see your comment that it works now. Thanks.)

Original comment by nriley on 5 Sep 2013 at 9:55

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
For the third time: I am working around it. Please pay attention.

Original comment by paracel...@gmail.com on 5 Sep 2013 at 9:55

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
FWIW, when you wrote "I've tried to add workarounds to detect and handle broken 
files like these," I  misunderstood — I thought that you meant you had worked 
around similar problems, not this exact problem. My (mis)understanding was 
confirmed by the reporter saying that the problem was not fixed for him.

You also didn't mention a version number when you fixed this particular 
problem, which I'd typically do in my own software.  And your last comment 
overlapped mine by only a minute, to the point that it was not visible when I 
submitted mine.  I did even apologize — give me a break.

Original comment by nriley on 6 Sep 2013 at 5:49

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
I posted that just as I fixed it, so it will be in the next version.

Original comment by paracel...@gmail.com on 6 Sep 2013 at 5:51