Am Thursday 16 August 2012 schrieb Paul Wratt: > just a note (and observation) > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Tim Ruehsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > You can find millions of examples and references using the wget 1.x in > > the internet, in printed articles, etc. To not break all these examples, > > wget 2 should be backward compatibel with wget 1.x. > > the current wget v1.x already breaks compatibility with "millions of > examples and references using the wget 1.x". This goes as far back as > 1.13.
> the options are still there, but some of the defaults are not, and in > some cases, certain combinations are no longer possible (as I have > mentioned before.. with no reply) > so at the current stand point v1.12 is the only version of wget that > can be used 100% reliably with "millions of examples and references > using the wget 1.x" > Your are talking about http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-wget/2011-11/msg00017.html From your post I really can't see a general "wget >=1.13 breaks millions of wget < 1.13 examples". You might help us (and yourself) by reducing your command line to the most simple case. How should we know (just from reading your post) if --restrict- file-names isn't the baddy ? Answer: We (maybe) have to test lots of combinations of your command options... something that you could have done. The simpler your case, the higher the chance of getting a response or someone writing a patch. This is absolute basic when reporting issues to anyone. Tim
