PACL 8.0 Beta 1

spwolf

Version:
PACL 8.00 Beta 1

Whats New:

Updated to PowerArchiver 2016 engine
Fully unicode interface
RAR v5 (v4) support
PAE2 support
Latest format support such as improved ZIPX, ISO, etc, etc, etc.

Download:
http://dl.powerarchiver.com/2016/pacl800b1.exe

Please test it against your existing scripts and let us know. There will be some features added in future release as well as more testing.

This is first release, please test. Thank you!

adrianyujs

Thank you!! Finally 4 years of waiting!

adrianyujs

When the archive is password protected, den extracting it it will ask for the password, den it’ll keep asking until completed extract it.

Why not first time asking the password den it’ll complete extract the archive.

I know I can use this argument -s<pwd>. But why not once asking password den the rest auto use the existing password?</pwd>

spwolf

@adrianyujs:

When the archive is password protected, den extracting it it will ask for the password, den it’ll keep asking until completed extract it.

Why not first time asking the password den it’ll complete extract the archive.

I know I can use this argument -s<pwd>. But why not once asking password den the rest auto use the existing password?</pwd>

if you would be kind enough to open a thread in wishlist part of pacl forums, we will take a look.

Thing is - ZIP archive can have individual compression and password to every file. So by default, it is ask each time. Most people use PACL for .bat so nobody suggested it before.

We can probably make it like in PA, where it keeps going with same password until error comes up.

Thanks!

adrianyujs

Yup I understand that, overall is excellent ^_^

A little suggestion, if something prompt user to enter password, shouldn’t it shown asterisk instead sensitive info?

Anyway any timeline expected final version?

spwolf

@adrianyujs:

Yup I understand that, overall is excellent ^_^

A little suggestion, if something prompt user to enter password, shouldn’t it shown asterisk instead sensitive info?

Anyway any timeline expected final version?

do you mean filename? It is not encrypted inside zip archive, only inside pae2 archives.

Beta 2 is coming soon, if you have any other wishes or suggestions, please let us know… it is more likely than not that it will be included in beta 2

Brian Gregory

This works:
J:>pacomp -a -r -p bin.7z c:\bin*

This seems to fail to produce any output file:
C:>pacomp -a -r -p j:\bin.7z \bin*

Brian Gregory

This:
C:>pacomp -a -r -p j:\bin.zip \bin*

Also behaves a a bit oddly if I do it twice.

The second time only a few files get re-added to the ZIP file.

Doing:
C:>attrib \bin*

reveals that the only files that get re-added are the ones showing the I attribute.

This is all under Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit.

Brian Gregory

J:>pacomp -a -r -p bin.zip c:\bin*
behaves the same as in previous meesage.

But this is a bit different:
J:>pacomp -a -r -p \bin.zip c:\bin*
PowerArchiver Command Line (PACL) Unicode Version 8.00 [Dec 21 2015]
Copyright 1998-2015 ConeXware, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Registered Version
This product is licensed to: Brian Gregory
Archive Compression Utility – ZIP,ZIPX,7-ZIP,CAB,LHA,BH,JAR,TAR,GZIP,BZIP2
Internet: http://www.powerarchiver.com Email: support@conexware.com

Archive: \bin.zip
preparing to compress…
adding: Rar.exe --> Done. [20%]
adding: Rar.txt –> Done. [20%]
adding: RarFiles.lst –> Done. [20%]
adding: UnRAR.exe –> Done. [21%]

*** ERROR: Cannot opet file
Check that file is not in use, or use -uvss for VSS support

1 error(s) encountered

J:>

I will now double check everything by rebooting and if necessary re-installing PACL

Brian Gregory

Still the same after reinstalling PACL 8.00 Beta 1 and rebooting.

Including odd spelling “Cannot opet file”.

spwolf

@Brian:

Still the same after reinstalling PACL 8.00 Beta 1 and rebooting.

Including odd spelling “Cannot opet file”.

thanks for testing, since PACL does not need installation and is self sufficient, usually re-install wont fix anything.

Brian Gregory

@spwolf:

thanks for testing, since PACL does not need installation and is self sufficient, usually re-install wont fix anything.

I was thinking maybe the files had got corrupted since the bugs seemed more extreme than I thought was likely.

spwolf

We should have PACL 8.0 x64 beta 2 available for testing this month, i hope… it should not be much longer in any case. Just an heads up!

Thank you!

adrianyujs

That’s cool~ Thank you!

@spwolf:

We should have PACL 8.0 x64 beta 2 available for testing this month, i hope… it should not be much longer in any case. Just an heads up!

Thank you!

BigMike

Hi, I’ve just tried to install PACL 8.0 Beta 1 and got the very misleading error message “Unknown compression type (currently only ZIP 2.0 is supported)” which suggests that the installer is corrupted.

The real problem was, that the installer is not UAC aware and I tried to install PACL into my program files folder without explicitly running it with elevated privileges.

spwolf

@BigMike:

Hi, I’ve just tried to install PACL 8.0 Beta 1 and got the very misleading error message “Unknown compression type (currently only ZIP 2.0 is supported)” which suggests that the installer is corrupted.

The real problem was, that the installer is not UAC aware and I tried to install PACL into my program files folder without explicitly running it with elevated privileges.

Mike, it is just an SFX… it does not know anything about UAC. Maybe we should make it UAC aware in the future. Thanks!

BigMike

Hi spwolf,

an UAC aware SFX module would be great, but at least the error message should point the user into the right direction

Brian Gregory

I don’t think a UAC aware SFX module makes much sense, unless it’s optional and you choose UAC aware or not UAC aware when creating the SFX archive. You normally don’t want a self extractor to be able to elevate itself in the hands of inexperienced users who might extract documents in to inappropriate places.

The error message just needs to correctly state the nature of the problem. “Insufficient privileges to write to …”

spwolf

@BigMike:

Hi spwolf,

an UAC aware SFX module would be great, but at least the error message should point the user into the right direction

as usual, problem with error messages is that module has to be aware of user permissions and uac in this case… so thats long way into actually making it work, not just show error message.

spwolf

@Brian:

I don’t think a UAC aware SFX module makes much sense, unless it’s optional and you choose UAC aware or not UAC aware when creating the SFX archive. You normally don’t want a self extractor to be able to elevate itself in the hands of inexperienced users who might extract documents in to inappropriate places.

The error message just needs to correctly state the nature of the problem. “Insufficient privileges to write to …”

for regular SFX I agree… but it would be nice addition to our SFX that delivers PACL.

We have to build new SFX that takes advantage of .pa format anyway.

Brian Gregory

@spwolf:

for regular SFX I agree… but it would be nice addition to our SFX that delivers PACL.

We have to build new SFX that takes advantage of .pa format anyway.

Then why not go the whole way and make a proper install program.

spwolf

@Brian:

Then why not go the whole way and make a proper install program.

you mean for PACL? It does not need it. It never writes anything to the registry, it is self sufficient. Am I too old school for thinking it should not be “installed”?

BigMike

I don’t know how much work writing an installer and creating an UAC aware SFX module are.

Having an UAC aware SFX module would be nice for all people distributing software in SFX archives, as the target directory is mostly C:\Program Files<afolder>. So not only PACL would benefit from this.
I understand your point that this is probably unneeded and unwanted for inexperienced users and archives which don’t contain programs. But a better error message like “insufficient write privileges” would be extremely helpful in this case.</afolder>

Brian Gregory

@spwolf:

you mean for PACL? It does not need it. It never writes anything to the registry, it is self sufficient. Am I too old school for thinking it should not be “installed”?

I agree.

And that’s why I myself would never put it in a out of site folder under “C:\Program Files” where I might forget about it and would need elevated privileges to put it there.

I always put PACL somewhere else like C:\PACL so that I know it wasn’t “installed” in the usual sense and therefore I will always know what to do should I need to remove it later.

spwolf

@BigMike:

I don’t know how much work writing an installer and creating an UAC aware SFX module are.

Having an UAC aware SFX module would be nice for all people distributing software in SFX archives, as the target directory is mostly C:\Program Files<afolder>. So not only PACL would benefit from this.

I understand your point that this is probably unneeded and unwanted for inexperienced users and archives which don’t contain programs. But a better error message like “insufficient write privileges” would be extremely helpful in this case.</afolder>

BikMike, I was thinking about PACL installer, which is an SFX… not actually creating an installer software in general :-).

spwolf

new version:
https://forums.powerarchiver.com/topic/5754/pacl-9-0-beta-2

Arynews

@adrianyujs Thanks you can also check ! https://arynews.tv/en/category/pakistan/