Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'man page & how to tell if a utility preserves resource forks' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
man page & how to tell if a utility preserves resource forks
Authored by: hayne on Nov 30, '06 10:09:18AM
1) I think the claim about inaccuracy of the man page for zip stems from a misunderstanding of the use of the term "MacOS" in that man page. MacOS refers to the pre-OS X versions of the Mac OS (e.g. OS 9). Thus those sections are not relevant to OS X.
As far as I can see, there are no OS X-specific features in 'zip' - and hence it doesn't preserve resource forks.

2) In the Unix-level utilities that have been enhanced (in Tiger) to preserve resource forks, this has been implemented via the use of the 'copyfile' function which is in libc. So one way to quickly check if it is likely that a particular utility will preserve resource forks is to look for 'copyfile' in the output from 'nm'. Look at the following results:


% nm /bin/cp | grep copyfile
         U _copyfile
% nm /usr/bin/tar | grep copyfile
         U _copyfile
% nm /usr/bin/zip | grep copyfile
%


[ Reply to This | # ]
man page & how to tell if a utility preserves resource forks
Authored by: gslusher on Dec 04, '06 03:57:04PM
As far as I can see, there are no OS X-specific features in 'zip' - and hence it doesn't preserve resource forks.
Read the comments before yours. The Finder-based "create archive" most certainly does preserve resource forks. I've proved that in Panther (10.3.9) and others did in Tiger. The author of the tip either got things confused or didn't take the difference into account when writing the tip. The headline is a bit of a scare, as it is not true for the way that most people will zip a file/folder, using the "Create archive" option in the Finder contextual menu.

[ Reply to This | # ]
article is about command-line zip
Authored by: hayne on Dec 06, '06 10:01:37AM

I repeat what I said in an earlier comment: the article and my comment that you quote are about the command-line version of zip.
This is reflected in the (revised) headline for the article.



[ Reply to This | # ]