Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

p7zip p7zip p7zip ... (Announce)

posted by Rugxulo Homepage, Usono, 27.07.2010, 16:46

(I'm pretty much replying to everyone here):

> DOS386: heh, so it fails with HDPMI32 only ???
I doubt it, I didn't see him mention that. We'd all need better examples of what cmdline he used, what files, his system setup (free RAM), exact error message, DPMI host + version used, etc. It may be a bug in p7zip or maybe something on his end.

> DOS386: So only PKUNZIP looks at this stupid "flag" ???
Dunno. There are a lot of silly flags in there (binary or text? host OS? extract version? compressor version?) that may or may not be handled differently by different tools. Plus don't forget all the extra fields! Yeah, .ZIP's got a few "dark corners", as they say.

> DOS386: 7-ZIP should be functionally equivalent on all host platforms !!!
I agree ... almost. Sure, I think this is a PKUNZIP bug, but we don't know what other tools will do if they always see "made on FAT". A better solution (just in case!) would be a "feature request" that 7-Zip let you manually override such miscella at compression time. Or else somebody needs a good hack tool (e.g. BE, as mentioned, may work, but I haven't tested it recently).

> Zyzzle: The "extraction" problem only appears on PKWare's DOS versions
> of Pkunzip (2.04g and 2.50), and Win32 PKzipw 2.50.
In other words, very common but (admittedly) old versions. I have PKZIP 2.50 and never use it. I'm surprised this didn't bite anyone before. Honestly I never thought it would be an issue. But I'm very glad to know about it!

> Zyzzle: I should add that all the DOS versions of p7zip that I tried produced
> these "rogue" .ZIP headers -- even Michael Kostylev's 4.58 and 4.61.
Right, that's because p7zip is basically a big hack of a Win32 project to support *nix. And on top of that kludge was another kludge that somehow (mostly) worked in DOS. ;-) Needs better defines than just #ifdef _WIN32 obviously. (There are other problems, e.g. forward slashes, dots in filenames, reserved names [CON, AUX, PRN], that are only handled by default if _WIN32 is defined. However, p7zip is very annoying, kinda unwieldly, I blame C++ or too many defines or Unicode support or *nix code or my own incompetence or ....)

> Zyzzle: However, I think the -O2 and -mtunei686 flags bloat the compiled
> binary (mik's version of 4.61 is ~100k shorter in its UPX'd version
> than your build of 4.61. So, hopefully recompiling without those two
> flags will unbloat the generated binary somewhat!
No, I cannot figure out how to compile with FSU Pthreads. That's why his is smaller, it doesn't need GNU pth 2.07 or WATT-32. He never shared his patches, or nobody still has 'em, and I have no idea.

> Zyzzle: the binary of mik's 4.61 hosted on your site 7za461mk.zip does
> not function AT ALL with -mx9 settings and using filters - give
> SIGSERV dump, but WILL work well with -mx7.
I only kept it around for comparison, just in case somebody wanted to test against it. It does work on my 486 Sx (whereas other p7zip versions don't), but I think HX + (Win32) 7ZA.EXE does also. But I'm unable to rebuild it his way.

> Zyzzle: FIXED!! At least, for me, no recompile was necessary based on
> the tip, I found the offending 0x03 bytes at offset 0x004c7a7 and
> 0x004c7cc in my P7ZIP.EXE binary. Saved the time of a recompile.
Okay, so I won't bother uploading a new binary for you then. I mean, I could, but if you don't really want it, I won't. I'm torn between 1). not doing anything, 2). nagging FreeDOS again to upload 4.65 to iBiblio, 3). hacking 4.65 to work better (above patch plus similar fixes for other _WIN32 things we also need, e.g. reserved file names, default extensions), 4). ignoring 4.65 in lieu of 9.13 (which I'm still unable to compile fully). I spent a few hours today, but I neither understand C++ nor (unsurprisingly) like it very much. Frustrating.

> david: You can compile 9.13 ver by machine.djgpp-watt, it works.
> it need hack in ../windows/FileDir.cpp !!
> and this is only one err! on my DJGPP env. Otherwise You can compile!
How??? I can't seem to figure it out. Too many dumb defines, lots of Win32-specific crud hidden, too much Unicode bullcrap. Please post a patch if you have one.

> david: 7za now compress and add to archive, but I can`t open archive!
> 7za a c:/p1/test.7z c:/p2/*.*
Yes, I think it handles backslashes incorrectly or something similar. I don't know, it's a heavy *nix port originally from (ugly) Win32-centric land. There is no real maintainer for DJGPP p7zip, so it has a few bugs.

> david: http://perotti.ic.cz/p7zip/7za.exe is changed !
> I think that is 4.61 version, I can`t sources for 4.65
Okay, "sources" isn't a verb, sorry, no comprende! ;-)
You can get the 4.61 sources at iBiblio. 4.65 is on my site (see links above). Yes, I see you uploaded old "beta" (buggy) 4.61 there instead of 9.13, why?? Does it work better? Did you at least try 4.65??

> Arjay: PKWARE appear to have now removed their own public download copy
> (which lived here: ftp://ftp.pkware.com/PK250DOS.EXE ) and I also
> noted that DOS as an option has also now been dropped off their
> contact sales page but as per this page it appears to still be
> available to buy/register.
*sigh* I have no idea why some companies do the things they do. At one time 2.04g or 2.50 was free for personal use (or so I thought), but later (after Phil died) they stopped "sharing" the shareware version (go figure). And of course the DOS version is more expensive than others to register ... again, go figure. Their Win32 extractor is free. Anyways, PKZIP 2.50 is mostly unnecessary unless you like ye olde "reduce" method (which Info-Zip avoids for "copyright reasons" [eh???]).

I guess I could rhetorically wonder why anybody bothers with .ZIP when .7Z is so superior, but I like .ZIP too! It is indeed universal (although 7-Zip/.xz/lzip/LZMA has gained a lot of traction lately, see latest FreeBSD for example).

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22632 Postings in 2109 Threads, 402 registered users, 428 users online (0 registered, 428 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum