On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Tomas Hozza <[email protected]> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- > > We have a user in Fedora ( > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1068834) > > > which thinks that --progress option should not be overridden by the > --quiet > > > option. > > > > > > The rationale behind this is that when users run a script then they may > > > want to see the progress of potentially long download, but don't want > > > to be informed for example about 302 redirections. > > > > > I understand the motivation behind such a request. I can cite another use > > case too. Sometimes you have an external application calling Wget to > download > > multiple files. Often times, all you want to see is the progress status > and nothing else. > > This is something I use regularly for downloading the update packages on > my Arch > > Linux system. > > > > > The reporter of the Fedora bug would like to see the progress bar on > stdout, > > > but as Micah Cowan stated it is really bad idea, mainly because stdout > is > > > intended for core data (especially when using "wget -O -". > > > > > > > > > As an example idea, the ability to pass the descriptor number to the > > > --progress option was proposed, for example "--progress=bar,1" or any > other. > > > > > > > I would instead try to introduce a new verbosity level which is more like > > --progress-only. I'm not sure how everyone here feels about editing the > output in > > --non-verbose mode. I have seen a few feature requests for changing > --non-verbose to display > > the progress bar only. > > > > > > > Although I think that the request seems to be valid, I personally > think the > > > current behaviour is correct. It seems more like a feature request. > > > > > > > I think this is a valid feature request. Currently, I am maintaining a > > separate patch-set > > which causes Wget to output, to stderr, only the progress bar when passed > > the -nv switch. It is not production quality, but if there is a demand > for the > > same, I could clean it up and submit a patch. > > I think that would be great. From my point of view, the new verbosity > level option makes more sense as it would not change the existing wget > behaviour. > > Thanks for your reply and for mentioning your patch-set. > Great! I'll work on the patch set when I get the time. And will also implement the same as a new verbosity level. > > -- Thanking You, Darshit Shah
