<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>"where to root archives?"<BR>
<BR>Maybe this is along the lines of "how to format my code?"<BR>
Religous and unanswerable and strong proponents of every answer?<BR>
<BR>but:<BR>
<BR>A)<BR> *.zip|*.tar.gz|*.tar.bz2 shall be named cm3.* <BR>
<BR>or<BR> B) cm3-<version>.* <BR>
<BR>ok, no question here, B is it.<BR>
<BR>And shall contain the structure:<BR>
<BR> 1) more than one file/directory at the root <BR> bin/cm3(.exe) <BR> pkg/libm3/...<BR>
<BR>or<BR> 2) root contains only one directory, and it has a version in its name (and target probably) <BR>
<BR> cm3-<version>/bin/cm3(.exe)<BR> cm3-<version>/pkg/libm3/.. <BR>
<BR>or <BR> 3) root contains only one directory, with no version in its name <BR>
<BR> cm3/bin/cm3(.exe)<BR> cm3/pkg/libm3/.. <BR>
<BR>#1 is what the current cminstall-using distributions use I believe.<BR>Since it is wrapped by an installer, doesn't really matter.<BR>Note though that the enclosing archive is also formed this way I think, but with fewer than 10 files.<BR>
<BR>It seems clearly the worst, unless you know about the tar -C or unzip -d switches, though tar -C doesn't<BR>create the output directory, unzip -d does.<BR>
<BR>#2 is VERY popular and tempting for me<BR>
<BR>#3 is what the Win32 builds use currently (scripts/win/make-dist.cmd) <BR>
<BR>It has the advantage of being more directly useable.<BR>
<BR> cd \<BR> unzip cm3-<version>.zip <BR>
<BR> and it goes into \cm3, a reasonable default, but could be preexisting (unzip does prompt I think) <BR>
<BR> If it went to cm3-version, you'd probably want to either rename it, or create a link to it, Window having<BR> varying support for different types of links on different versions, not sure if use is widespread.<BR> fsutil hardlink create creates file hard links on XP+<BR> mklink creates hardlinks and symlinks on Vista+ <BR> probably only file hardlinks and file or directory symlinks <BR> At some point, directory links were avoided because a) not required by Posix? b) allows creating cycles <BR> I see cycles now on my default installs and have crashed stuff as a result. :(<BR> junction from <A href="http://www.sysinternals.com">www.sysinternals.com</A> creates directory linkes on...Win2000+?<BR> (This is all NTFS only of course, or over SMB to other file systems; actually stupid fsutil demands a local file system, even though underlying CreateHardLink works over SMB..)<BR> <BR>
#2 seems safer, and user can immediatley rename to #3 after extraction.<BR>
<BR>Oh, and in the Explorer GUI, the default is to extract in a directory with the same name as the basename of the archive.<BR>That makes #1 slightly better and the others slightly worse.<BR>
<BR>
Inevitably it seems the command line is doomed to always check before extracting anyway..<BR>
unzip -l foo.zip | more <BR>
tar tfz foo.tar.gz | more <BR>
<BR>Besides that, it still impresses and bugs me how much smaller .tar.bz2 is vs. anything else...but the Explorer support or .zip files<BR>is also somewhat compelling...except that you have to use the command line with CM3 anyway....<BR>
<BR>
- Jay<BR><BR><br /><hr />The best games are on Xbox 360. Click here for a special offer on an Xbox 360 Console. <a href='http://www.xbox.com/en-US/hardware/wheretobuy/' target='_new'>Get it now!</a></body>
</html>