Issue 68249 - Only dbf and not DBF allowed in OOo base
Summary: Only dbf and not DBF allowed in OOo base
Alias: None
Product: Base
Classification: Application
Component: code (show other issues)
Version: OOo 2.0.3
Hardware: All Linux, all
: P3 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: dbaneedsconfirm
QA Contact: issues@dba
Keywords: oooqa
: 68738 (view as issue list)
Depends on:
Reported: 2006-08-08 09:55 UTC by stuttgarter
Modified: 2013-08-07 15:45 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description stuttgarter 2006-08-08 09:55:12 UTC
ISSUE 59361: has status closed, resolution fixed, milestone 2.0.2 but Problem
still exists in OOo 2.O.3

Problem see ISSUE 59361: Only dbf and not DBF allowed in OOo base
Comment 1 stuttgarter 2006-08-11 12:22:07 UTC
CC to Andre Schnabel, because he closed issue 59361 in 2.0.2RC1
Comment 2 andreschnabel 2006-08-14 19:24:07 UTC
when connecting to a DBASE-database only tebales with suffix .dbf are
recognized. If a table has a .DBF suffix , it cannot be used in base.

confirmed on Linux using m180

this is not a duplicate of issue 59361, as that one has been reported on
windows. OOo base m180 on Windows recognizes both suffixes (.dbf as well as .DBF)
Comment 3 andreschnabel 2006-08-14 20:31:25 UTC
additional info: 
this was already broken in OOo 2.0.1 but as mentioned in issue 59361 it should work.
Comment 4 Frank Schönheit 2006-08-15 07:25:29 UTC
No, on UNIX systems this is not expected to work.

More precise, if the file is in a file system which is case sensitive, then only
.dbf should be recognized. If the file system is not case sensitive (as it is
normally the case on Windows), then .dbf and .DBF and .dBf and so on should all
be recognized. This is the behaviour from the beginning, AFAICT.

It might be debatable whether this is reasonable. AFAIK, .dbf is required by the
dBase standard. .DBF been "introduced" by Windows programs which just didn't
care (since it doesn't make a difference). Thus I am not sure whether we should
generally be case-ignorant here.
Comment 5 christoph.lukasiak 2006-08-16 15:10:26 UTC
no bug -> wontfix
Comment 6 christoph.lukasiak 2006-08-16 15:11:10 UTC
Comment 7 andreschnabel 2006-08-16 18:15:41 UTC
opened issue 68687 as follow-up
Comment 8 jjmckenzie 2006-09-04 15:11:37 UTC
*** Issue 68738 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***