121773 2006-02-11 18:50:49 +0000 *.war directory seen as a file 2006-02-12 22:24:43 +0000 1 1 10 Unmaintained kio fish unspecified Debian testing Linux RESOLVED DUPLICATE 106648 NOR normal --- 0 thomaslanquetin trouble nicolasg 0 oldest_to_newest 413324 0 thomaslanquetin 2006-02-11 18:50:50 +0000 Version: (using KDE KDE 3.5.1) Installed from: Debian testing/unstable Packages OS: Linux While trying to access a directory called ROOT.war (it's a directory used by tomcat) via fish://, I noticed that the directory was seen as a java Web ARchive file. This prevents from accessing the directory, and one has to rename it to be able to access it. As a matter of fact, each directory named *.war is seen via fish:// as a file. 413552 1 nicolasg 2006-02-12 17:04:25 +0000 May be I do not understand but *.war is a file and not a directory. So you will not be able to open it by FISH. Perhaps you mean that you can open a local file with the zip: KIO slave like a ZIP file (assuming that WAR files are ZIP files) but this can only work with local files not with remote files. So perhaps this bug report is a duplicate of bug #73821 ( http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73821 ) which asks for KIO slaves to be chainable. Have a nice day! 413569 2 thomaslanquetin 2006-02-12 17:53:51 +0000 Hi, Actually, this is not my point, though chainable kio slaves would be great :-) . The problem is really that directories (and I mean directories not files) called *.war are seen as *.war archives which makes them unaccessible. I believe you could reproduce it by renaming any directory into *.war and trying to access it via fish. I would expect to be able to browse the directory, even though its name is *.war, but unfortunately it's not currently possible. I hope I'm making myself clearer... Thank you for your attention. 413609 3 nicolasg 2006-02-12 21:04:35 +0000 I am very sorry to have miunderstood you. So it is not this clasical bug but the other, in this case bug #106648 which makes this bug report being a duplicate. Have a nice day! *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 106648 *** 413631 4 thomaslanquetin 2006-02-12 22:24:43 +0000 Yes, that's correct. Sorry for the duplicate, I should have double checked.