Re: getpass alternative [Re: getpass documentation]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matthew Woehlke wrote: Micah Cowan wrote: Wget just added code to the dev repo that uses gnu_getpass to support password prompting. This was mainly because it was quick-and-easy, and because gnu_getpass doesn't suffer from many of the serious flaws plaguing alternative implementations. Hehe, earlier today I merged my old, lame-but-functional patch with 1.11.3 (I've changed systems since last time). Does this mean that when fedora picks up 1.12 (after there *is* a 1.12 obviously :-) ) that I won't need to roll my own any more? ;-) That's the plan. I guess you're quoting from my post to the gnulib list? :) For those not in the loop, the context of the thread above is discussion of a more general password-getting solution, for folks that don't need something that adheres to the (formerly) standard Unix getpass interface. - -- Micah J. Cowan Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer, and GNU Wget Project Maintainer. http://micah.cowan.name/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIRjOl7M8hyUobTrERAr85AJ922yvYJuNz6ZCB3isah8kwguWSnwCeKKcA rOm0SJPErGDtt7VaLgg9J5w= =7Mz/ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
GNU Coding Standard compliance
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'm trying to package wget-1.11.3 for cygwin. But you have several GNU Coding Standard compliance problems that is making this task more difficult than it should be. GCS requires that your testsuite be run by 'make check', but yours is a no-op. Instead, you provide 'make test', but that fails to compile if you use a VPATH build. And even when using an in-tree build, it fails as follows: ./Test-proxied-https-auth.px echo echo /bin/sh: ./Test-proxied-https-auth.px: No such file or directory After commenting that line out, the following tests are also missing: ./Test-proxy-auth-basic.px ./Test-N-current-HTTP-CD.px Test-N-HTTP-Content-Disposition.px fails, since it didn't add the - --content-disposition flag to the wget invocation. Several Test--spider-* tests fail, because an expected error code of 256 is impossible (exit status is truncated to 8 bits). Also, your hand-rolled Makefile.in don't support --datarootdir. I'm not sure whether you are interested in migrating to using Automake, which would solve a number of these issues; let me know if you would be interested in such a patch. - -- Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well! Eric Blake [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin) Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkhGkA0ACgkQ84KuGfSFAYAyvgCffHFFioWeTT+8sTn8O6YzdfM1 y7MAn12XTpxo1PiMtIwALxm1KrqsKROS =xKOZ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: getpass alternative [Re: getpass documentation]
Micah Cowan wrote: Matthew Woehlke wrote: Micah Cowan wrote: Wget just added code to the dev repo that uses gnu_getpass to support password prompting. This was mainly because it was quick-and-easy, and because gnu_getpass doesn't suffer from many of the serious flaws plaguing alternative implementations. Hehe, earlier today I merged my old, lame-but-functional patch with 1.11.3 (I've changed systems since last time). Does this mean that when fedora picks up 1.12 (after there *is* a 1.12 obviously :-) ) that I won't need to roll my own any more? ;-) That's the plan. Great news, thanks! Now... if Fedora will just pick it up... :-) I guess you're quoting from my post to the gnulib list? :) Right. -- Matthew I don't see what C++ has to do with keeping people from shooting themselves in the foot. C++ will happily load the gun, offer you a drink to steady your nerves, and help you aim. -- Peter da Silva (from cluefire.net)
Re: GNU Coding Standard compliance
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Eric Blake wrote: I'm trying to package wget-1.11.3 for cygwin. But you have several GNU Coding Standard compliance problems that is making this task more difficult than it should be. GCS requires that your testsuite be run by 'make check', but yours is a no-op. Instead, you provide 'make test', but that fails to compile if you use a VPATH build. And even when using an in-tree build, it fails as follows: ./Test-proxied-https-auth.px echo echo /bin/sh: ./Test-proxied-https-auth.px: No such file or directory After commenting that line out, the following tests are also missing: ./Test-proxy-auth-basic.px ./Test-N-current-HTTP-CD.px Test-N-HTTP-Content-Disposition.px fails, since it didn't add the --content-disposition flag to the wget invocation. Several Test--spider-* tests fail, because an expected error code of 256 is impossible (exit status is truncated to 8 bits). Also, your hand-rolled Makefile.in don't support --datarootdir. I'm not sure whether you are interested in migrating to using Automake, which would solve a number of these issues; let me know if you would be interested in such a patch. We actually have already migrated to Automake in the mainline revision, which we forked some time ago. 1.11.x development has focused on important bugfixes only. The issues with the tests are known, and documented (see tests/README). They are provided as-is; a work-in-progress, and not really expected to be terribly useful. I'm actually working on improving this process right now (and in fact, the current mainline is already much-improved in this regard, thanks to some recent commits). In the mainline repository, make check works as expected (modulo some remaining issues with the tests, such as intermittent failures due to the fact that all the tests use the same web-server port for testing, and don't always wait quite long enough for reuse; I'll have that fixed soon). I would definitely recommend that make test be abandoned altogether; alternatively, you could probably modify tests/Makefile.in to match current mainline, which now runs a run-px script, rather than all those hideous ./Test-foo.px echo echo lines in Makefile.in proper (the tests from mainline should run fine on 1.11.3, I believe). It would still need some work, as I mention, to really be reliable, but at least there aren't glaring issues with broken and missing tests (and it runs via the expected make target). Good luck with the packaging. - -- HTH, Micah J. Cowan Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer, and GNU Wget Project Maintainer. http://micah.cowan.name/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIRsTS7M8hyUobTrERApudAJ9ugo0WsAL/gkJud1fK4Ip3+vDFSgCeMGvQ XFuwWhMOlGdeOx90BGoWyOA= =q4wa -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: getpass alternative [Re: getpass documentation]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matthew Woehlke wrote: Micah Cowan wrote: Matthew Woehlke wrote: Micah Cowan wrote: Wget just added code to the dev repo that uses gnu_getpass to support password prompting. This was mainly because it was quick-and-easy, and because gnu_getpass doesn't suffer from many of the serious flaws plaguing alternative implementations. Hehe, earlier today I merged my old, lame-but-functional patch with 1.11.3 (I've changed systems since last time). Does this mean that when fedora picks up 1.12 (after there *is* a 1.12 obviously :-) ) that I won't need to roll my own any more? ;-) That's the plan. Great news, thanks! Now... if Fedora will just pick it up... :-) I don't see why they wouldn't; they're up-to-date with 1.11.3, as of today, which seems like a pretty quick pick-up, to me. - -- Micah J. Cowan Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer, and GNU Wget Project Maintainer. http://micah.cowan.name/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIRsjk7M8hyUobTrERAgXYAJ9jTqhrbAVZfl5//f7cFjzpw2rohACfYVXu Sj9P/t1lD/1S2wQ0uaukLgc= =mJsC -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: getpass alternative [Re: getpass documentation]
Micah Cowan wrote: Matthew Woehlke wrote: Great news, thanks! Now... if Fedora will just pick it up... :-) I don't see why they wouldn't; they're up-to-date with 1.11.3, as of today, which seems like a pretty quick pick-up, to me. Maybe, but Fedora 8 is only on 1.10.2 (the patched Red Hat one)... I'm not sure what their policy on switching minor versions is; hopefully it isn't 'stick with 1.11.x until Fedora 10' :-). -- Matthew I don't see what C++ has to do with keeping people from shooting themselves in the foot. C++ will happily load the gun, offer you a drink to steady your nerves, and help you aim. -- Peter da Silva (from cluefire.net)
Re: getpass alternative [Re: getpass documentation]
Great news, thanks! Now... if Fedora will just pick it up... :-) I don't see why they wouldn't; they're up-to-date with 1.11.3, as of today, which seems like a pretty quick pick-up, to me. Maybe, but Fedora 8 is only on 1.10.2 (the patched Red Hat one)... I'm not sure what their policy on switching minor versions is; hopefully it isn't 'stick with 1.11.x until Fedora 10' :-). https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/wget is the canonical page for Fedora's Wget package. Talking to the package maintainer would be the best to way to know what policy is being followed. Happy hacking, Debarshi
