[Bug-wget] texinfo @dir information
Tiny change for the manual to make its dir entry consistent with others, ok? Thanks, k --- /usr/local/gnu/src/wget-1.13.4/doc/ORIG/wget.texi 2011-08-06 03:22:58.0 -0700 +++ /usr/local/gnu/src/wget-1.13.4/doc/wget.texi2011-09-27 07:34:17.0 -0700 @@ -22,5 +22,5 @@ -@dircategory Network Applications +@dircategory Network applications @direntry -* Wget: (wget). The non-interactive network downloader. +* Wget: (wget). Non-interactive network downloader. @end direntry Diff finished at Tue Sep 27 07:34:18
Re: [Bug-wget] texinfo @dir information
k...@freefriends.org (Karl Berry) writes: Tiny change for the manual to make its dir entry consistent with others, ok? Ok. Pushed. Thanks, Giuseppe
[Bug-wget] Returning the http status
Hi, at the moment (v 1.12) wget returns status 8 (Server issued an error response) for any non 200 status. It would be really nice it the actual error status was returned. That is an http status of 200 returned a bash status of 0, all other statuses were returned unaltered. (For what it is worth curl appears to return unix status 0 for 404 pages, I can at least check for status 8 with wget) cheers Tim -- Tim Pizey - http://pizey.net/~timp Centre for Genomics and Global Health - http://cggh.org
[Bug-wget] Wget 1.13.4 v. VMS -- Various problems
It's still early, but here are the initial complaints... lib/snprintf.c now ignores HAVE_SNPRINTF. In previous wget versions, I could compile snprintf.c and not get a redundant snprintf() if HAVE_SNPRINTF was defined (%LINK-W-MULDEF, symbol DECC$TXSNPRINTF multiply defined). I can supply a conditional jacket for snprintf.c, but should I need to (now)? src/connect.c does #include sys/select.h and #include sys/socket.h with no regard for HAVE_SYS_SELECT_H or HAVE_SYS_SOCKET_H. I have no select.h (in sys or anywhere else), and was hoping that not defining HAVE_SYS_SELECT_H would have some effect. In src/init.c initialize(), the if (! ok) message thinks that it can print SYSTEM_WGETRC whether or not SYSTEM_WGETRC is defined. An old OpenSSL (0.9.8j) was too old. (1.0.0e worked better.) I haven't looked yet, but is the minimum required OpenSSL version documented anywhere? Or would some magic have happened if I had been using the auto-configure stuff? Steven M. Schweda sms@antinode-info 382 South Warwick Street(+1) 651-699-9818 Saint Paul MN 55105-2547
