Kyle Altendorf <s...@fstab.net> added the comment:
Turns out the docs do document this. My apologies. https://pkware.cachefly.net/webdocs/casestudies/APPNOTE.TXT 4.3.11 Archive extra data record: archive extra data signature 4 bytes (0x08064b50) extra field length 4 bytes extra field data (variable size) Aside from the discrepancy between 16-bits and 4 bytes, it seems like something should happen, even if it's something other than 'fixing' the code to handle the malformed data. Isn't it a bug for zipfile to create a non-compliant file? Shouldn't it either check or provide an interface by which a compliant file could sensibly be created? It doesn't seem great to just expect users to rewrite this each time they call. (42).to_bytes(4, 'little') + len(data).to_bytes(4, 'little') + data or, should it be 'big'? and would it be (len(data) + 4 + 4)? ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue34606> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
