Unexplained emblems on some of Fatdog ISOs (SOLVED)

[Clarity]

Could someone explain why some file have these while most dont? I cannot find an explanation.

Why icon differences.png (33.39 KiB) Viewed 724 times

Thanks in advance

[JakeSFR]

It's an indicator of extended attributes. IIRC some browsers add it automatically to downloaded files.
You can view/edit/delete them via right-click -> Extended attributes....

EDIT: I split this to a separate thread.

Greetings!

[Clarity]

Thanks for proper placement of this thread's request for help.

OK, extended attribs....???

• What is creating these attribs?
• And should there be some/any attention paid for when files get these assigned?

Right now, the attribs, as you say, are only on a few of the ISOs in this folder. Most of the others do not have the noted flaggings. I am sure there is a reason. Why?

Confused

[step]

OK, extended attribs....???

https://www.mankier.com/1/setfattr To get you started. Particularly attr(5) in section SEE ALSO.

What is creating these attribs?

Follow the connection between the files and the program you used to download them As SFR did say, some browser do -- when they download a file for you. Which browser did you use to download the Fatdog ISOs? In recent years, I've only seen Opera add attrs to downloaded files. As far as I know, Opera doesn't anymore. Another one that does is wget when passed option --xattr, IIRC.

And should there be some/any attention paid for when files get these assigned?

You don't have to do anything, the browser (supposedly, in your case) added these attrs to the download. If you don't want that to happen you can either find out which browser setting to disable or delete the attrs with the commands I linked above.

Right now, the attribs, as you say, are only on a few of the ISOs in this folder. Why?

If you move the files with rox filer, the attrs move with the files. They don't depend on a particular folder. However, the file system matters. if you move the files that have attrs to a file system that doesn't support attrs, such as fat32, the attrs are gone forever from the copies in the fat32 file system.

Only some files in that folder have attrs, why? My guess is that the other files were not downloaded or they were downloaded with a different browser. Follow the connection between the files and the program you used to download them.

Confused

Hopefully, not as much now. You can experiment with the commands I linked to on some test files in the shell. Attrs don't harm your files.

[Clarity]

Thanks eversomuch! That'll cause me to pay attentions as I use various sources to download files, including wget & curl & browsers.

Thanks for making that understandable.

[user1111]

lsattr * (or filename).

I'm using btrfs format filesystem (instead of ext4) on one partition and some files show that emblem indicating that the compression attribute for the file is set in some cases.

[Clarity]

So, those flags indicate the compression attribute?

If so, is the flag there to tell the I/O subsystem that decompression is required for proper use?

[user1111]

So, those flags indicate the compression attribute?

If so, is the flag there to tell the I/O subsystem that decompression is required for proper use?

No the emblem just indicates that a chattr (special attribute) has been set on the file/folder. It could for instance be the immutable attribute having been set (chattr +i <file>), that prevents the file/folder from being modified, renamed, deleted (or having a soft/hard link set (even by root)).

It also depends upon what filesystem you're actually using. Under ext I don't think the flag/emblem shows within rox ??

[jamesbond]

It's an indicator of extended attributes. IIRC some browsers add it automatically to downloaded files.
You can view/edit/delete them via right-click -> Extended attributes....

@Clarity, did you do what Jake said?
Can you post a screenshot of the results?

[Clarity]

@jamesbond, maybe this yields clues I may have missed.

xscreenshot-20200915T113524.png (27.66 KiB) Viewed 597 times

I dont remember which of the various ways I download files, as they vary depending...
And here's the FD811 added few days ago.

[Clarity]

If I interpret those 2, it seems the mirrors "may" be injecting file attributes.

[jamesbond]

If I interpret those 2, it seems the mirrors "may" be injecting file attributes.

You keep ignoring answers already given to you. First response to your OP:

IIRC some browsers add it automatically to downloaded files.

And step's response a few posts underneath:

the browser (supposedly, in your case) added these attrs to the download

But since apparently you don't believe either of them, here is something that I hope you find to be more trustable: the Debian bug report: chromium: secretly stores referer and url for downloaded files.

And if you still don't believe it, here is what Chromium devs said themselves, when they backtracked that decision. So which version of Chromium are you running again? Note: Just because it is dropped in Chromium doesn't mean it is dropped from Chrome too. Who knows.

For a more interesting point of view, go and read Firefox bug report here. Apparently someone wanted it done on Firefox too because "Chromium did it too". Interesting world we live in.

---

But wait, that's not all. Even wget and curl can be configured to do this (just add --xattr switch): so if you use any downloader program that uses either of these two, they can end up storing the xattrs too depending on how that downloader program is configured.

So what's the source of the these xattrs?
The only person who can answer the question is you.
Which program did you use to download these ISOs?
Configure that program, to disable storing these extended attributes.

---

In either case, for already-downloaded files, you can easily remove the xattrs. From Rox, right-click, choose "Extended Attributes" and then the box comes up, click "Remove". Easy. No problem at all.

I hope this clarifies the answer not only to you but to everyone else who wonders what this stuff is all about.

Final note: You probably don't see this elsewhere in Puppy because some kernels are compiled without xattr support. Ours are, and has been, for a very long time. Why? Because we need it, and we use it for serious stuff.

[Clarity]

NO, NO, NO!

I believe! I dont want to overlook something potentially damaging that may be missed. I believe each of you!

Thanks to everyone for your assistance and the understanding that has surfaced.

BTW: True!

You probably don't see this elsewhere in Puppy...

Not seen in others.

Thanks, again to everyone for exposure.