Hi,
I noticed that if I run $] tar -zxvf foo.tar.bz foo
then I can't open foo.tar.bz w/file-roller, because it says it isn't a regular 'bzip2' file or something. I have many old .tar.bz or .tbz files. How can I make file-roller not to assume that EVERITHING I gave him is using bzip2, but bzip?
This is something new... I don't remember having this issue in FC1, and to tell you the true, I'm almost sure that in the begining this worked OK. ¿Was this changed with any of the latest updates?
On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 15:04, Mariano Draghi wrote:
Hi,
I noticed that if I run $] tar -zxvf foo.tar.bz foo
then I can't open foo.tar.bz w/file-roller, because it says it isn't a regular 'bzip2' file or something. I have many old .tar.bz or .tbz files. How can I make file-roller not to assume that EVERITHING I gave him is using bzip2, but bzip?
I'm confused by what you've written above. In the example of the tar command above you have the "z" option, which means use gzip, and the "x" option which means extract. And yet the next part of your message suggests that you used tar to *create* a *bzip2* archive. Can you explain more clearly what you are trying to do?
Reading between the lines, tar will allow you to call an archive anything you please, so "tar -zcvf foo.tar.bz2 foo" will still create a gzip tar archive (because you used the "z" option) even though you have decided to use a filename that as a matter of convention would normally be used for a bzip2 tar archive. If you want to create a bzip2 tar archive then you need to use the "j" option to tar, not the "z" option, like so: tar -jcvf foo.tar.bz2 foo".
This is something new... I don't remember having this issue in FC1, and to tell you the true, I'm almost sure that in the begining this worked OK. ¿Was this changed with any of the latest updates?
It maybe the case that in the past file-roller automagically determined the archive type, but now simply goes by file extension. As you may have created a gzip tar archive but named it in a way that suggests that it is a bzip2 tar archive file-roller may be correctly informing you of this.
Best, Darren
D. D. Brierton escribió:
On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 15:04, Mariano Draghi wrote:
Hi,
I noticed that if I run $] tar -zxvf foo.tar.bz foo
then I can't open foo.tar.bz w/file-roller, because it says it isn't a regular 'bzip2' file or something. I have many old .tar.bz or .tbz files. How can I make file-roller not to assume that EVERITHING I gave him is using bzip2, but bzip?
I'm confused by what you've written above. In the example of the tar command above you have the "z" option, which means use gzip, and the "x" option which means extract.
Sorry! Mi fault. I meant:
$] tar -zcvf foo.tar.bz foo
And yet the next part of your message suggests that you used tar to *create* a *bzip2* archive. Can you explain more clearly what you are trying to do?
No, I assume that with the (corrected) above command I create a *bzip* (no bzip2) archive. But then file-roller try to decompress it using bzip2, instead of bzip.
Reading between the lines, tar will allow you to call an archive anything you please
Yes, I know that.
If you want to create a bzip2 tar archive then you need to use the "j" option to tar, not the "z" option, like so: tar -jcvf foo.tar.bz2 foo".
Yes, I know. And that works. To put it more clear: tar -jcvf foo.tar.bz2 foo --> can be opened with file-roller tar -zcvf foo.tar.bz foo --> CANNOT be opened with file-roller, it fails saying that the archive isn't a valid bzip2 archive, which is true, I mean, it is a bzip archive, not bzip2. The problem is that file-roller is doing a WRONG assumption.
It maybe the case that in the past file-roller automagically determined the archive type, but now simply goes by file extension.
Ok, but if that is the case, isn't '.tar.bz' the standard extension for bzip archives? How am I supposed to name a bzip archive for file-roller to make the right guessing?
I feel my post sound VERY silly, but I'm pretty sure I'm doing the same thing I've been doing for years... and now it doesn't work. I'm puzzled.
Hope it's more clear now... I made a mess with my previous post. Sorry!
On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 16:06, Mariano Draghi wrote:
Sorry! Mi fault. I meant:
$] tar -zcvf foo.tar.bz foo
You're still using the "z" option which means use gzip, not bzip2. There is no bzip shipped with FC, as far as I know bzip2 replaced bzip long ago.
No, I assume that with the (corrected) above command I create a *bzip* (no bzip2) archive.
There is no bzip in FC. There is gzip and bzip2.
If you want to create a bzip2 tar archive then you need to use the "j" option to tar, not the "z" option, like so: tar -jcvf foo.tar.bz2 foo".
Yes, I know. And that works. To put it more clear: tar -jcvf foo.tar.bz2 foo --> can be opened with file-roller tar -zcvf foo.tar.bz foo --> CANNOT be opened with file-roller, it fails saying that the archive isn't a valid bzip2 archive, which is true, I mean, it is a bzip archive, not bzip2. The problem is that file-roller is doing a WRONG assumption.
No file-roller is assuming that the ".bz" suffix means that you used bzip2, whereas you have used gzip.
It maybe the case that in the past file-roller automagically determined the archive type, but now simply goes by file extension.
Ok, but if that is the case, isn't '.tar.bz' the standard extension for bzip archives?
Yes. And the standard program for decompressing that is bzip2!
How am I supposed to name a bzip archive for file-roller to make the right guessing?
But your archive are made with gzip, not bzip2! They should be named foo.tar.gz!
Best, Darren
On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 11:17, D. D. Brierton wrote:
On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 16:06, Mariano Draghi wrote:
Sorry! Mi fault. I meant:
$] tar -zcvf foo.tar.bz fooYou're still using the "z" option which means use gzip, not bzip2. There is no bzip shipped with FC, as far as I know bzip2 replaced bzip long ago.
No, I assume that with the (corrected) above command I create a *bzip* (no bzip2) archive.
There is no bzip in FC. There is gzip and bzip2.
If you want to create a bzip2 tar archive then you need to use the "j" option to tar, not the "z" option, like so: tar -jcvf foo.tar.bz2 foo".
Yes, I know. And that works. To put it more clear: tar -jcvf foo.tar.bz2 foo --> can be opened with file-roller tar -zcvf foo.tar.bz foo --> CANNOT be opened with file-roller, it fails saying that the archive isn't a valid bzip2 archive, which is true, I mean, it is a bzip archive, not bzip2. The problem is that file-roller is doing a WRONG assumption.
No file-roller is assuming that the ".bz" suffix means that you used bzip2, whereas you have used gzip.
It maybe the case that in the past file-roller automagically determined the archive type, but now simply goes by file extension.
Ok, but if that is the case, isn't '.tar.bz' the standard extension for bzip archives?
Yes. And the standard program for decompressing that is bzip2!
How am I supposed to name a bzip archive for file-roller to make the right guessing?
But your archive are made with gzip, not bzip2! They should be named foo.tar.gz!
Best, Darren
--
D. D. Brierton darren@dzr-web.com www.dzr-web.com Trying is the first step towards failure (Homer Simpson) =====================================================================
Use tar xvjf foo.bz or bz2 (The '-' is depreciated and no longer needed)
D. D. Brierton escribió:
On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 16:06, Mariano Draghi wrote:
[...]
Yes, I know. And that works. To put it more clear: tar -jcvf foo.tar.bz2 foo --> can be opened with file-roller tar -zcvf foo.tar.bz foo --> CANNOT be opened with file-roller, it fails saying that the archive isn't a valid bzip2 archive, which is true, I mean, it is a bzip archive, not bzip2. The problem is that file-roller is doing a WRONG assumption.
No file-roller is assuming that the ".bz" suffix means that you used bzip2, whereas you have used gzip.
[...]
But your archive are made with gzip, not bzip2! They should be named foo.tar.gz!
... I see. I suppose I have a very wrong naming-habit, and the previous file-roller version let me live with it ;)
/me feels REALLY stupid!
Now, I'm going to do some "find ..." and "mv ..." on my own tarballs (I still can't believe it!)
Regards,
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 12:33:23 -0300 Mariano Draghi mdraghi@prosud.com wrote:
... I see. I suppose I have a very wrong naming-habit, and the previous file-roller version let me live with it ;)
/me feels REALLY stupid!
Now, I'm going to do some "find ..." and "mv ..." on my own tarballs (I still can't believe it!)
Just as a side note, "rename" should be helpful on this case:
rename .bz .gz *.tar.bz
or maybe even (WARNING: untested command ahead)
rename .bz .gz $(find . -name *.tar.bz)
should do the trick for you (NOTE: read the manual and make some backups/tests before trying it full-scale, just in case)
HTH
Andre
-
Andre Costa -
D. D. Brierton -
jludwig -
Mariano Draghi