64-bit support (Was: Poll: Primary D version)

[Justin Johansson]

retard wrote:
> The files inside the .zip won't run because one particular Mr. Bright 
> doesn't set the +x flag on. It's not a fault of Linux if he is using 
> retarded Windows version of the zip packager. It's easy to fix, he just 
> doesn't care. The zip works just fine even on a 64-bit system if the 32-
> bit libraries have been installed.

Hey retard, while I enjoy reading a lot of the controversy that you like 
to create on this NG, sorry, on this occasion I think you are being 
somewhat unfair towards one particular person here.

My understanding is that .zip files are traditionally a DOS (originally 
PKZIP) then come Windows thing then come Unix available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZIP_%28file_format%29

Being so, .zip files do not inherently/traditionally support recording 
Unix file permissions such as +x within the archive.  If such facilities 
exist today in Unix .zip utilities (and I am unaware of the same) these 
would have to be extensions over and above what .zip files are commonly 
understood to support given the DOS/PKZIP history of this file format.

Recording of Unix file permissions in archives is traditionally achieved 
with .tar files (and compressed variants) as I am sure you are well aware.

When downloading archive from the net, I look for .zip files if wanting 
to install on Windows and .tar or .tar.gz if wanting to install on 
Unixes.  I imagine that most Unix-aware folks would do the same.

In this instance I think you should be asking that archives be available 
in both .tar and .zip variants for the respective platforms and not 
accusing a certain somebody of being delinquent in not setting a +x flag 
on a file in a .zip file.

Cheers
Justin Johansson