[OT] zip etiquette

[Ellery Newcomer]

On 03/11/2010 11:09 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Ellery Newcomer"<ellery-newcomer at utulsa.edu>  wrote in message
> news:hnc4o3$2lms$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>
>> I suppose the name isn't so important, but I really hate zip files whose
>> contents aren't contained inside a single directory.
>
> This is a bit of a "vim vs emacs" or "static vs dynamic" sort of issue.
>
> Most of the archive programs I've used, including the one I currently use,
> put an "Extract to new directory" option into my file manager's right-click
> menu. I *always* use that, and consider it downright silly not to. But every
> once in a while I'll get an archive that follows the "nothing but one dir"
> convention, so I get a useless extra subfolder that I have to either delete
> or allow it to clutter up my filesystem, and that just irritates the hell
> out of me.

I rarely come across a zip file that doesn't follow that convention, and 
I never extract to new directory, but I do always check the contents of 
the zip file manually.

>
> Personally, I'm convinced that any archive program that doesn't allow you to
> automatically create a subfolder by default is a bad archive program. And
> I'm convinced that a convention that places restrictions on the top-level of
> a zip is, well, rediculous. But obviously there are people that disagree
> with me on that. So, I guess it's a "vim vs emacs" kind of thing.
>
> What I really want is an archive program that automatically makes a
> subfolder by default *but* detects if the top level inside the archive
> contains nothing more than a single folder and intelligently *not* create a
> new folder in that case. But I've yet to see one that does that, and I
> haven't had time to make one.
>
>

Yeah, I'm thinking I'm going to do that with dmdz