.LZX archives conversion

Supamax · 04 January 2012, 23:39

Hi,

is there a way - in Windows - to convert a .lzx archive (containing files and directories, not a disk image) to another archive type (for example .lha etc.) without losing/modifying the original attributes of the included files/directories?

I tried using W95unlzx, but the files/directories attributes change to the current date and time.

I know I should do it all with the Amiga (or WinUAE), for example copying the contents on a floppy / hard disk, but doing it in Windows is more practical.

By the way: it's a stupid question but I never took notice... if on an Amiga I extract a .lzx archive, will the extracted contents get new date/time attributes? I fear so...

prowler · 04 January 2012, 23:51

Hi Supamax,

Using Windows command line utilities like W95unlzx will always be problematic when unpacking Amiga archives because the Windows filesystems lack the same precision regarding the timestamps. Windows' precision is two seconds and Amiga OS' is 0.02 seconds - plus, Windows is unable to replicate any date before 01-Jan-80.

Hence, what you really need is a utility which converts directly from .lzx to .lha internally without dumping the filesystem to the host hard disk - and I don't know of one, unfortunately.

So, it must be done within WinUAE or on a real Amiga using the LZX and LHA archivers.

Edit: Both LZX and LHA archivers allow you to preserve both the attributes and the date/time stamps of both files and directories with command line switches.

Supamax · 05 January 2012, 00:12

Thanks

Quote:

Originally Posted by prowler

Hence, what you really need is a utility which converts directly from .lzx to .lha internally without dumping the filesystem to the host hard disk - and I don't know of one, unfortunately.

You're right.
However... I don't necessarily need to repack them in .lha format. I didn't make myself clear (even to myself

).
I thought that a direct .lzx --> .lha conversion could retain the date/time stamps without too many hassles... and you confirmed that

.

What I really want to do is unpack the .lzx contents onto floppy/hd without changing the date/time stamps.
According to what you wrote, it can be accomplished by using the LZX archiver. So... thanks

EDIT: I'm looking on Aminet... is there a particular LZX archiver and GUI to suggest?

http://aminet.net/search?query=lzx&sort=date&ord=DESC

prowler · 05 January 2012, 00:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supamax

What I really want to do is unpack the .lzx contents onto floppy/hd without changing the date/time stamps.
According to what you wrote, it can be accomplished by using the LZX archiver. So... thanks

EDIT: I'm looking on Aminet... is there a particular LZX archiver and GUI to suggest?

I use this one:
http://aminet.net/package/util/arc/lzx121r1

It's a command line utility. There are GUIs for it, but they may require MUI, and I find that use of the command line gives better control over the archiving process.

To extract an archive copied to your ramdisk and preserve all attributes and time/date stamps, you should open a CLI on the disk to which you wish to extract the archive, e.g. DF0:, and enter:
lzx -ak x ram:archive.lzx

Edit: Have a look here for some possible GUIs to use with common archivers:
http://aminet.net/search?query=LZX

Supamax · 05 January 2012, 00:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by prowler

I use this one:
http://aminet.net/package/util/arc/lzx121r1

Thanks. Do you suggest to apply the Y2Kpatches too? (http://aminet.net/package/util/arc/LZX121r_pch)
Are they necessary for dealing with "post year 2000" files?

Quote:

There are GUIs for it, but they require MUI

Ehm, I obviously know what a GUI is but I have really no idea about what a MUI could be...

P.S. what do you think about Packmaster128?
http://aminet.net/package/util/arc/Packmaster128

EDIT: sorry, I thought that Packmaster128 was a GUI for lzx121r1, but I now suspect it could use its own archive/extract "engine"... is it so?
It's very popular (2282 downloads)

prowler · 05 January 2012, 00:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supamax

Thanks. Do you suggest to apply the Y2Kpatches too? (http://aminet.net/package/util/arc/LZX121r_pch)
Are they necessary for dealing with "post year 2000" files?

IIRC, that archive already has the patches applied. I've not had any trouble with it in that respect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supamax

Ehm, I obviously know what a GUI is but I have really no idea about what a MUI could be...

Magic User Interface: http://aminet.net/package/util/libs/mui38usr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supamax

P.S. what do you think about Packmaster128?
http://aminet.net/package/util/arc/Packmaster128

I have no idea. I don't really like GUIs for use with archivers, DOSser that I am.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supamax

EDIT: sorry, I thought that Packmaster128 was a GUI for lzx121r1, but I now suspect it could use its own archive/extract "engine"... is it so?
It's very popular (2282 downloads)

If it has its own engine, then I wouldn't trust it. I sometimes use LZX 1.20r when I'm fixing .lzx archives and v1.21 doesn't produce matching compressed code under certain circumstances, but I don't trust anything else.

Supamax · 05 January 2012, 01:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by prowler

IIRC, that archive already has the patches applied. I've not had any trouble with it in that respect.

Hmmm, strange... I'm saying this because in the LZX121r_pch description I see:
"Installation: use freely distributable GPatch program (included) on exe files from original LZX 1.21r distribution (it can be found on Aminet as 'lzx121r1.lha' in 'util/arc' directory)."

So it would seem that lzx121r1.lha is not patched... Furthermore, if you look at the dates in the Aminet archive, you can see:
LZX121r_pch.lha is dated 2000-01-11
lzx121r1.lha is dated 1997-12-20 (older)

By the way, there's another patch!:
LZX_Y2Kfix.lha, dated 2000-01-20, which is newer than LZX121r_pch.lha and described as "LZX 1.21r 100% y2k bug fixed by dr.Titus". I suppose this is a replacement of LZX121r_pch.lha ..?

Quote:

Magic User Interface: http://aminet.net/package/util/libs/mui38usr

Woah, thanks... it looks complicated!
Ok, I suppose I'll stay with the DOS version, without GUI

Quote:

If it has its own engine, then I wouldn't trust it.

I agree with you

prowler · 05 January 2012, 01:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supamax

Hmmm, strange... I'm saying this because in the LZX121r_pch description I see:
"Installation: use freely distributable GPatch program (included) on exe files from original LZX 1.21r distribution (it can be found on Aminet as 'lzx121r1.lha' in 'util/arc' directory)."

So it would seem that lzx121r1.lha is not patched... Furthermore, if you look at the dates in the Aminet archive, you can see:
LZX121r_pch.lha is dated 2000-01-11
lzx121r1.lha is dated 1997-12-20 (older)

By the way, there's another patch!:
LZX_Y2Kfix.lha, dated 2000-01-20, which is newer than LZX121r_pch.lha and described as "LZX 1.21r 100% y2k bug fixed by dr.Titus". I suppose this is a replacement of LZX121r_pch.lha ..?

My LZX archiver doesn't seem to have any problems extracting or compressing Y2K+ files, but I really don't remember applying any Y2K patch...

However, 'dr.Titus' does seem vaguely familiar, so maybe that's the one I used, or else I got hold of a 'dr.Titus' Y2K bug-fixed vesion from somewhere?

Supamax · 05 January 2012, 01:26

Hmmmm...

Ok, if in doubt I'll use the 'dr.Titus' patch then...

Quote:

Originally Posted by prowler

I sometimes use LZX 1.20r when I'm fixing .lzx archives and v1.21 doesn't produce matching compressed code under certain circumstances, but I don't trust anything else.

What do you mean exactly? That under certain circumstances v1.20r is more reliable than v1.21?
Or are you simply saying that under certain circumstances the two releases produce slightly different archives (all conditions being equal - parameters, files etc.)?

prowler · 05 January 2012, 01:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supamax

Hmmmm...

Ok, if in doubt I'll use the 'dr.Titus' patch then...

Yes, that's the one I would use if I had to rebuild my C: folder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supamax

What do you mean exactly? That under certain circumstances v1.20r is more reliable than v1.21?
Or are you simply saying that under certain circumstances the two releases produce slightly different archives (all conditions being equal - parameters, files etc.)?

No, they are equally reliable, AFAIK. I can't explain this, but under certain circumstances (all files, time/date stamps, attributes and command line switches, etc. being equal) v1.20r produces wildly different but still valid compressed code of equal size to that produced by v1.21r.

I discovered this when I was reconstructing a broken lzx archive on a corrupted Amiga Fomat 117a coverdisk image. I couldn't even closely replicate a certain part of the compressed code with v1.21r whatever command line switches I used, but when, in desperation, I tried v1.20r, I got an exact match straightaway!

I posted here about it at the time. I'll try to find it...

Supamax · 05 January 2012, 01:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by prowler

but under certain circumstances (all files, time/date stamps, attributes and command line switches, etc. being equal) v1.20r produces wildly different but still valid compressed code of equal size to that produced by v1.21r.

It's indeed strange

Quote:

[...] but when, in desperation, I tried v1.20r, I got an exact match straightaway!

Good job!

I like your way... try&try&try all possible paths until you get some positive results

. When I enter my "frenzy" mode I'm very similar...

prowler · 05 January 2012, 01:59

Here it is!

In particular, the bit where I say "Incidentally, I'm not sure what version of LZX they were using at Amiga Format to produce their archives, because I had to use a combination of Registered versions 1.20 and 1.21 to reproduce their compressed data. "

(I had been reconstructing the Fiasco 2.2 LZX archive on that disk from an LHA archive I got from Aminet, when I found that I had to change to v1.20 exactly to replicate a portion of the compressed code!)

Toni Wilen · 05 January 2012, 07:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by prowler

Using Windows command line utilities like W95unlzx will always be problematic when unpacking Amiga archives because the Windows filesystems lack the same precision regarding the timestamps. Windows' precision is two seconds and Amiga OS' is 0.02 seconds - plus, Windows is unable to replicate any date before 01-Jan-80.

FAT has 2 second precision. NTFS is totally different and does support much larger range date and precision range.

I assume w95unlzx simply uses old date APIs.

Supamax · 05 January 2012, 18:41

Hmmm, OK for the precision etc., but what I noticed is much worse: all files extracted using W95unlzx have/get the current date and time (of my PC)

.

prowler · 05 January 2012, 22:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toni Wilen

FAT has 2 second precision. NTFS is totally different and does support much larger range date and precision range.

Thanks for the info, Toni.

I suspected that NTFS was probably much better, but I was testing W95unlzx in... Windows 95 ...so that's what I found.

nzo · 27 May 2015, 12:04

I've found some info for the y2k patches on this site and you can find comparison tests here. However I can't decide which fix to use

04 January 2012, 23:39	#1
Supamax Da Digger :) Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Monza, Italy Posts: 2,822	.LZX archives conversion Hi, is there a way - in Windows - to convert a .lzx archive (containing files and directories, not a disk image) to another archive type (for example .lha etc.) without losing/modifying the original attributes of the included files/directories? I tried using W95unlzx, but the files/directories attributes change to the current date and time. I know I should do it all with the Amiga (or WinUAE), for example copying the contents on a floppy / hard disk, but doing it in Windows is more practical. By the way: it's a stupid question but I never took notice... if on an Amiga I extract a .lzx archive, will the extracted contents get new date/time attributes? I fear so... Last edited by Supamax; 04 January 2012 at 23:50.

04 January 2012, 23:51	#2
prowler Global Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Sidcup, England Posts: 10,300	Hi Supamax, Using Windows command line utilities like W95unlzx will always be problematic when unpacking Amiga archives because the Windows filesystems lack the same precision regarding the timestamps. Windows' precision is two seconds and Amiga OS' is 0.02 seconds - plus, Windows is unable to replicate any date before 01-Jan-80. Hence, what you really need is a utility which converts directly from .lzx to .lha internally without dumping the filesystem to the host hard disk - and I don't know of one, unfortunately. So, it must be done within WinUAE or on a real Amiga using the LZX and LHA archivers. Edit: Both LZX and LHA archivers allow you to preserve both the attributes and the date/time stamps of both files and directories with command line switches. Last edited by prowler; 04 January 2012 at 23:59.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Zone and lzx archives	Retro-Nerd	project.EAB	2	30 December 2010 00:41
New Icon Archives	Paul	News	0	07 January 2005 12:21
dms archives	T_hairy_bootson	Amiga scene	15	02 October 2003 23:53
Utility disks and PD archives	absence	request.Apps	5	06 March 2003 16:03

05 January 2012, 01:59	#12
prowler Global Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Sidcup, England Posts: 10,300	Here it is! In particular, the bit where I say "Incidentally, I'm not sure what version of LZX they were using at Amiga Format to produce their archives, because I had to use a combination of Registered versions 1.20 and 1.21 to reproduce their compressed data. " (I had been reconstructing the Fiasco 2.2 LZX archive on that disk from an LHA archive I got from Aminet, when I found that I had to change to v1.20 exactly to replicate a portion of the compressed code!)

05 January 2012, 18:41	#14
Supamax Da Digger :) Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Monza, Italy Posts: 2,822	Hmmm, OK for the precision etc., but what I noticed is much worse: all files extracted using W95unlzx have/get the current date and time (of my PC) .

27 May 2015, 12:04	#16
nzo WHD/oldskool maniac Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Pecs/Hungary Age: 49 Posts: 99	I've found some info for the y2k patches on this site and you can find comparison tests here. However I can't decide which fix to use

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)