Bug 121773

Summary:	*.war directory seen as a file
Product:	[Unmaintained] kio	Reporter:	Thomas Lanquetin <thomaslanquetin>
Component:	fish	Assignee:	Jörg Walter <trouble>
Status:	RESOLVED DUPLICATE
Severity:	normal	CC:	nicolasg
Priority:	NOR
Version:	unspecified
Target Milestone:	---
Platform:	Debian testing
OS:	Linux
Latest Commit:		Version Fixed In:
Sentry Crash Report:

Description Thomas Lanquetin 2006-02-11 18:50:50 UTC

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.

Comment 1 Nicolas Goutte 2006-02-12 17:04:25 UTC

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!

Comment 2 Thomas Lanquetin 2006-02-12 17:53:51 UTC

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.

Comment 3 Nicolas Goutte 2006-02-12 21:04:35 UTC

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 ***

Comment 4 Thomas Lanquetin 2006-02-12 22:24:43 UTC

Yes, that's correct.
Sorry for the duplicate, I should have double checked.