Pcmanfm doesn't extractzip files into their own dir

Asked by bsalem on 2012-11-19

$ uname -a
Linux brucesalem-FQ582AA-ABA-SR5710F 2.6.38-16-generic #67-Ubuntu SMP Thu Sep 6 18:00:43 UTC 2012 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux

I can't upgrade because upgrade manager complains about unsupported packages.

The version of the file manager pcMANfm is 0.99

The problem is that unlike earlier versions of nautalis, clicking a zip file does not create a directory with the same name as the zip file. The FM just extracts the files in the current dir, which is the way the shell command works.

Can I change the command that clicking on the zip file icon does or should I report a bug?

IMHO it is bad policy to change major functions of a tool like a file manager.

Question information

English Edit question
Ubuntu pcmanfm Edit question
No assignee Edit question
Solved by:
Last query:
Last reply:
Revision history for this message
bsalem (bruce-euphon) said :

OK, I see what happened here. There is an extra step and the functionality has changed. Double Clicking on the icon opens the archive manager, as it always did. That hasn't changed, but when you right-click you used to get a directory created if you selected "extract here", that has changed. Now it just extracts in the current dir. If you want to extract to a dir you have select"extract to" and create a dir to extract the zip to. I can see that is equivalent to the shell command 'unzip -d foo foo.zip'. A design decision was made here. I don't really agree with it, but I suppose that I can create a script to select from the menu to "Extract to dir of the same name". I think it would be more safe to try to extract to the dir of the same name as the zip file ALWAYS and that is to protect from the pathological step of trying to extract the zip file more than once. In that case foo.zip would extract to foo, foo(1), foo(2)... That would be much better IMHO.

Revision history for this message
bsalem (bruce-euphon) said :

BTW, I do not know off the top of my head how to add a menu choice to the file manager and if I can plug a shell script into it. Can I do that? That would be a decent workaround.

Revision history for this message
actionparsnip (andrew-woodhead666) said :

2.6.38-16-generic is a Natty kernel. Natty is EOL and no longer supported.

Revision history for this message
bsalem (bruce-euphon) said :

Well, "bzzitt.. usupported, reinstall!" is easy for you to say, but in the real world of competition between companies, i.e. Canoninical vs. some other company vending a Linux, it means that if you piss off your customers and they dump your distro in the trash bin because the support is CRAPPY, I'd say you are kicked to the curb.

Now, since I already said that I was having trouble getting to a supported version of the distro because of lack of useful information in the Update Manager, such as, read the entire trouble report I posted, the next question is: Is there any CONSTRUCTIVE advice you can offer with the file manager at hand to restore functionality that changed?

It may not take any consideration of the kernel version to answer my question YES or NO. Can the file manager menu talk to a shell command? PERIOD.

SO I have already filed a bug against the Update Manager NOT because I am at an unsupported rev, but because it won't help me get to a supported rev. I had U 10.10 and up graded once to U 11.04 and failed a second upgrade to
U 11.10. There should be more information available about which packages are unsupported than the general and vague message in the Update Manager when it quits. I have around 6500 packages installed and I need to know which are not supported. If the Upgrade Manager is buggy, can't handle situations of mine, then be honest in all your support FAQS that upgrade is not to be trusted and provide some troubleshooting help to get to the bottom of the unsupported packages problem, or remove the tool entirely. In this case the speed with which revs fall out of support ought to be reconsidered as a strategic matter relating to the survival of the business in charge of the distro.

Given that I may as well do a complete reinstall from scratch, I may as well look for a different distro entirely before we can deal with functionality of the file manager which was YOUR design decision, not mine. And I can do so with malice to the people who support this distro. Thank You, Very Much!

Revision history for this message
actionparsnip (andrew-woodhead666) said :

Its how the support works, it's like asking Microsoft for WIn95 support. That is also EOL.

Revision history for this message
bsalem (bruce-euphon) said :

I know how support works. I.ve done support, for Sun Microsystems from 1997 to 2004. You are evading the issues of this question. It has nothing to do with the kernel version, unless the version of the file manager is not supported by a supported kernel. My question is not about that.

I want to know if my version of file manager supports adding a shell command to the option menu.

I also want the issue with the update manager addressed, which is why my install is not supported, because a tool that you provide fails. I have a separate open bug report on that, which if you want to go work on that, be my guest. I have seen no activity on that bug report, so have at it.

In the meantime put someone who knows the file manager on this problem.

Revision history for this message
bsalem (bruce-euphon) said :

Yes, pass this problem onto someone else, please.

Revision history for this message
actionparsnip (andrew-woodhead666) said :

That's not how a forum works. I thought you would have known that with all your years of experience.

This forum is a public and free forum, so if people want to add suggestions etc, then that is their precognitive. It is nobody's responsibility to 'recruit' someone in to get answers. It is down to other users to contribute.

What do you think this is!??

Revision history for this message
bsalem (bruce-euphon) said :

In a forum, you ask a question in the hope that some other user knows how to solve a problem. It is informal. It is possible that no one has an answer. But when someone goes on a forum and all they say is "bzzt, unsupported", that is no help at all, in fact that is the type of brush off you get from an engineering staff if the question had been a bug report.

I filed a bug report on the failure with the Update Manager and have heard no response.

I didn't think it useful to file bug report for the file manager issue because I have an unsupported system, but I didn't expect, nor did I appreciate getting the type of response I would have gotten if I had filed a bug report.

I don't know who you are, Andrew Woodhead, but it would have been better if you had said nothing. If you are Connonical Staff, you are doing your company a disservice. If you are Joe Luser you are not helping, and you should not say anything more. You haven't answered my question even in the most general case. I may have to go find the source for the file manager and try to find the answer myself, or settle with not using two things that are broken with the file manager that were broken with it now after the upgrade: Trash does't work and zip files don't extract the way they did in U 10.10. As it stands now Ubuntu has several black eyes. I could close this question now, but I'd much rather keep this exchange in the record, and I could replace Ubuntu with another more stable Linux, because right now I think Cannonical is letting revs fall out of support too fast, not to mention the window manager controversies, which I think were caused by arrogance.

Revision history for this message
bsalem (bruce-euphon) said :

I mean, I see this list of about 100 people who get notified on this exchange, and I assume that is because of some topical interest, and not one of them has some knowledge of the issue? Someone else should have something to say, and if they are engineers who maintain the file manager they should be commanded to look at the problem, examine the source,and say if what I want to do, which is to create a menu choice that runs a shell command, can be done by me for dealing with zip files. I want someone else to comment.

Revision history for this message
bsalem (bruce-euphon) said :

I have been able to find a partial solution to this issue on my own, and
discussed on the bug report I made. The file manager will open a terminal
on the current dir, and I can issue the zip command I need from the shell.
The remaining issue is how the menu options should work.I proposed that the
file manager should protect users from corrupting the current directory by
ALWAYS creating a subdir to extract into no matter how the zip file was
created and that the file manager should force the new dir it creates to be
unique unless the user overrides this. I know that this is exactly the
opposite of the way the shell command works, but the menu item is intended
for productivity and for novices, I think, and so if you have to open a
terminal to issue a shell command to be safe, the menu item as designed is
dangerous, and should be redesigned.

On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:06 AM, bsalem <
<email address hidden>> wrote:

> Your question #214574 on pcmanfm in Ubuntu changed:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pcmanfm/+question/214574
> Linked to bug: #1081689
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1081689
> "Failed upgrade, can I add shell command to file mgr menu for zip file
> extraction?"
> --
> You received this question notification because you asked the question.

Revision history for this message
bsalem (bruce-euphon) said :

I have a partial solution, leaving the matter as a possible bug. I will followup a report to the package author. Since I am already in trouble with unsupported packages, I have no more to lose by getting a fix to the original package and installing it and not wait for it to get into Ubuntu repositories or expect the never backport of the package to my unsupported Ubuntu install. In the meantime I will press on the Update Manager bug so I can upgrade my system into support, and then I will have some leverage to get the file manager fixed in the Ubuntu distro.