I'm not sure, but looking at the patch, it /does/ seem like it tries to override the user settings, which IMO should not happen. If that is indeed the case, I do not support this patch either.
@Giuseppe: About the failing test, that particular test seems to have some weird timing problems. I'm assuming it is probably a fault in the perl server. It randomly fails for me too. However, if you run make check again, chances are the test will pass. :) On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Ángel González <[email protected]> wrote: > On 17/07/14 13:49, Tomas Hozza wrote: >> >> I agree. The patch didn't take any configuration possibility from the >> user. >> The users would be able to configure whatever in the same way they were >> before. >> >> Please really see some of those patches I sent. The discussion was little >> bit confusing at some points ~ like the intentions were interpreted >> differently. >> >> Regards, > > > I still strongly oppose to the patch. If the user configures wget to only > use Perfect > Forward Security, and your patch makes wget connect to a server not using it > you > are overriding user configuration (in the weakening direction). > See my last email for details. > > Patch v3 also seem to coalesce the different options of --secure-protocol if > using > GnuTLS, which IMHO doesn't make sense either. > > PS: s/cipers/ciphers/ in v3 > > -- Thanking You, Darshit Shah
