>To: scoug-help@scoug.com
>Subject: SCOUG-Help: Re: unzip toplevel directory only ?
> __________________________________________________________________
>
>........
>
>> >Steven Levine wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I don't guarantee this, but try:
>> >>
>> >> unzip * -x *\*
>> >
>> Peter wrote:
>> >
>> >Good thinking and nice try (and excellent
>> >disclaimer). But it didn't work. I tried */* also.
>>
>leganii@surfree.com wrote:
>>
>> That worked fine on my system.
>> Different versions of unzip?
>> Mine is version 5.50.
>> Example: unzip ttools.zip -x */*
>> Seems elegant, and apparently works with both pkunzip and unzip.
>
>Thanks! I have an older version:
>
> [G:\]unzip
> UnZip 5.42 of 14 January 2001, by Info-ZIP.
> Maintained by C. Spieler.
>
>I'll update right now. There are three unz550* files at[50]
>ftp://ftp.info-zip.org/pub/infozip/OS2, guess I'll grab all three and
>see what the differences are.
>
>> >(I've seen FAT files without a date or time).
>> *************
>> Those never show up in the above.
>
>Okay. I think DOS DIR suppressed the fields when they were 00h or
>something. I seem to remember it was Borland's products that sometimes
>had a few files with this and I was able to recreate it by jamming some
>weird value into the date-time field.
>
>> What the $%&(*&^ are you talking about?
>
>Why, exactly what's on my mind, that's what! :)))
>
>> The only thing smaller than 1 output field is none.
>> In which case it stops doing nothing.
>
>I thought you were parsing the string. If a field is missing then the
>parse gets "out of sync".
Yes, it gets parsed, but in something of a dummy case in the instance
in question - everything to variable US.
The real work was being done by the unzip -Z -1...'s '-1' switch in
the case in question - the real feature being used was
to loop throught the standard input and do something (run unzip) on
each line.
The 'parsing' was a trivial case.
>
>> >I don't want the thing to break if I run it
>> >on a machine which uses Object Rexx, . . .
>>
>> ????????
>> They simply aren't part of the parse tool,
>> only if you choose to use them.
>
>I don't know how compatible Classic Rexx is with the Object Rexx
>interpreter, so naturally I'm a bit paranoid with this. Rexx Tips &
>Tricks has an example of how to write a Rexx program which can run under
>either, but iirc you have to code two different code sections into the
>program and then determine which version you are running on at the very
>beginning, then call that code section.
>
>- Peter
I think probably depends on *actually using* O.R. features.
Until you do that there are probably zilch diffrences.
Anyway, Steven's idea was exactly right.
--
Regards,
Dallas E. Legan II / leganii@surfree.com / dallasii@kincyb.com
Powered by......Lynx, the Internet at hyperkinetic speed.
=====================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, send an email message
to "steward@scoug.com". In the body of the message,
put the command "unsubscribe scoug-help".
For problems, contact the list owner at
"rollin@scoug.com".
=====================================================
<< Previous Message <<
>> Next Message >>
Return to [ 06 |
January |
2003 ]
The Southern California OS/2 User Group
P.O. Box 26904
Santa Ana, CA 92799-6904, USA
Copyright 2001 the Southern California OS/2 User Group. ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED.
SCOUG, Warp Expo West, and Warpfest are trademarks of the Southern California OS/2 User Group.
OS/2, Workplace Shell, and IBM are registered trademarks of International
Business Machines Corporation.
All other trademarks remain the property of their respective owners.
