Bug 51873

Summary:	directory file sizes in content listings of tar.gz's incorrect
Product:	[Unmaintained] kio	Reporter:	colesen
Component:	tar	Assignee:	David Faure <faure>
Status:	RESOLVED INTENTIONAL
Severity:	wishlist	CC:	mail, nicolasg, niels.reedijk
Priority:	NOR
Version First Reported In:	unspecified
Target Milestone:	---
Platform:	Compiled Sources
OS:	Linux
Latest Commit:		Version Fixed/Implemented In:
Sentry Crash Report:

Description colesen 2002-12-13 21:42:56 UTC

Version:           3.1.0 (using KDE 3.1.0 (RC5))
Installed from:    compiled sources
Compiler:          gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.3 2.96-113)
OS:          Linux (i686) release 2.4.18-18.7.x

Get a tar.gz file of a file directory tree.
Click on the tar.gz file in Konqueror as filemanager to have Konqueror list the contents. Directories in the listing are listed with size 0 B.

Comment 1 Niels Sascha Reedijk 2004-04-20 18:57:20 UTC

Acknowledged.

However, normal directories are shown with the size of 4 kB. Whether that would be such an enormous improvement, I wouldn't know...

Comment 2 Nicolas Goutte 2005-05-15 17:33:55 UTC

To comment #1: at least with the number of 4 KB blocks taken, you can see if the directory is small or not. With a constant value you cannot.

Comment 3 Nicolas Goutte 2005-05-23 09:12:58 UTC

I have found out that tar --list shows the directories with a size 0 too. So this is not a bug but a wish. And as it is a "feature" of the tar format, I am not sue anymore if it should be implemented.

Have a nice day!

Comment 4 Julian Steinmann 2018-08-05 11:58:38 UTC

There is already a bug report in the correct place (kio-extras), so I'll close this one here.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 230744 ***

Comment 5 Julian Steinmann 2018-08-05 12:01:02 UTC

Whoops, the comment was intended for another bug report... Anyways, as far as I understand this bug, the described behavior is actually a feature of the .tar format so I'll close this report as WONTFIX. If you don't agree with that decision, then please open a new bug report over at kio-extras and explain why kio should go against the standard in this case. Thanks!