Re: httpfs, tarfs --help

[Adam Olsen]

On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 07:24:46PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 06:08:25PM +0000, Adam Olsen wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 05:02:52PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 03:34:02PM +0000, Adam Olsen wrote:
> > > > 3) as 2, but triggered when you you have a "foo.tar.gz" file and try
> > > > to open "foo".  Probably useful when other programs recognise the .gz
> > > > extension and try to open it as a zip file.  (well, I suppose the
> > > > dir/file distinction would protect foo.tar.gz files, but plain foo.gz
> > > > files would still be vulnerable)
> > > 
> > > I think letting the translator do it is the Right Way. Implementing gzip
> > > in every application is useless anyhow IMHO. So I think we should fix
> > > the apps. :)
> > 
> > There's two ways for an app to support gzipped files:
> > a) within the app itself, by recognising files with a .gz extension
> > b) using a translator
> > 
> > You can't use the translator *all* the time, because you may want to
> > manipulate the gzipped file itself.  And doing it in the app has to be
> > duplicated for every app.  Therefore there IS no "right way".  Do
> > whatever is most convenient.
> 
> You are right. But it is still possible in the tarfs case. If you want
> to manipulate the file, you edit foo.tar. If you want the directory
> tree, it's foo.tar/.

Yeah, but I was actually thinking about gzipped files (as I'm not
likely to keep an uncompressed tar around)


> > > > More important than if you *can* make it transparent, is if you *want*
> > > > to make it transparent.  But I think it's definetely worth
> > > > implimenting.
> > > 
> > > I think there are a lot of people who will use it. Just think about it:
> > > download a tarball, cd into it, build the program and install it. With
> > > or without the option of storing the changes in the tarball itself (You
> > > could make some kind of shadowfs thing). People who dislike it can
> > > always turn it off, so that's no problem. We should also be sure to make
> > > it secure.
> > 
> > I agree.  Btw, naming a non-gzipped file .gz breaks opening them with
> > vim, and presumably every other app that already supports gzipped
> > files.  Being compatable is very important.
> 
> That's just stupid, if they can't uncompress the file they should show
> the raw data IMHO. But as usual people don't think like I do and being
> compatible is indeed important. But we still can use it in the tarfs
> case I think.

"compatable?  Why would somebody want to obfuscate the filenames?
Opening gzipped files is just a hack anyway."

We can start with the bug reports after we have real code, not just
some theoretical ideas :)

-- 
Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus