It never occurred to me before reading this comment that there actually is a use case for the execute permission. To me it was always just this annoying thing I have to do whenever I download an executable which I didn’t have to do on Windows.
There’s a bunch of zip implementations(Info-Zip, Gzip, 7-Zip, PKZip, Pigz, etc.), so perhaps an older version of one of the implementations didn’t support preserving the Linux executable permission in the past.
So doesn’t the user have to add +x to run this?
It never occurred to me before reading this comment that there actually is a use case for the execute permission. To me it was always just this annoying thing I have to do whenever I download an executable which I didn’t have to do on Windows.
Fun fact, Windows has the same permission it just defaults to enabled.
No because the zip archive retains permissions of the contained files.
Hm, maybe there should be an option to always disable the executable permission when extracting
That’s perhaps possible, but likely would have to be implemented in each achieving tools individually.
Zip too? I thought only on Windows, while tar retains unix permissions.
All archive formats do it, afaik.
But i’m sure there was an issue somewhile ago, because zip only preserves Windows permissions…
There’s a bunch of zip implementations(Info-Zip, Gzip, 7-Zip, PKZip, Pigz, etc.), so perhaps an older version of one of the implementations didn’t support preserving the Linux executable permission in the past.
Ah, right