Eli Zaretskii writes:
>> From: Giuseppe Scrivano
>> Cc: Gisle Vanem , bug-wget@gnu.org
>> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 10:34:12 +0100
>>
>> do you mind to send it in the git am format with a ChangeLog entry?
>
> Attached. (I presume by "ChangeLog entry" you meant a commit log
> message formatted acc
> Cc: bug-wget@gnu.org
> From: Gisle Vanem
> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 14:11:27 +0100
>
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> > + {
> > +#ifdef WIN32
> > + /* If the connection timed out, fd_close will hang in Gnulib's
> > + close_fd_maybe_socket, inside the call to WSAEnumNetworkEvents. */
> > +
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> + {
> +#ifdef WIN32
> + /* If the connection timed out, fd_close will hang in Gnulib's
> +close_fd_maybe_socket, inside the call to WSAEnumNetworkEvents. */
> + if (errno != ETIMEDOUT)
> +#endif
> + fd_close (sock);
> + }
> if (print)
>
> From: Giuseppe Scrivano
> Cc: Gisle Vanem , bug-wget@gnu.org
> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 10:34:12 +0100
>
> do you mind to send it in the git am format with a ChangeLog entry?
Attached. (I presume by "ChangeLog entry" you meant a commit log
message formatted according to ChangeLog rules.)
>From
Eli Zaretskii writes:
> If we call fd_close here with a socket that failed to connect, wget
> hangs inside Gnulib's close_fd_maybe_socket, waiting for
> WSAEnumNetworkEvents that never returns. Why it never returns, I
> don't know, but I suspect that a failed connection and a blocking
> socket h
> From: Gisle Vanem
> Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 13:58:07 +0100
>
> > Here's another one that I thought was already fixed, but apparently
> > wasn't - --connect-timeout doesn't work on Windows without this patch
>
> You're right. This is needed:
>
> --- src/connect.c~0 2014-12-02 09:49:37.0
On Saturday, December 12, 2015, 13:58:07, Gisle Vanem wrote:
> But I don't really understand why. Care to explain?
No idea - the patch was posted to the mailing list by Eli Zaretskii on
March 17th.
--
< Jernej Simončič ><><><><>< http://eternallybored.org/ >
The fact that monkeys have hands sh
Jernej Simončič wrote:
> Here's another one that I thought was already fixed, but apparently
> wasn't - --connect-timeout doesn't work on Windows without this patch
You're right. This is needed:
--- src/connect.c~0 2014-12-02 09:49:37.0 +0200
+++ src/connect.c 2015-03-17 17:14:
On 12/11, Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
Jernej Simončič writes:
On Tuesday, December 8, 2015, 21:45:31, Darshit Shah wrote:
With my last set of patches, we have fixed all the issues reported / identified
after the 1.17 release. Hence, maybe we should consider releasing a 1.17.1
bugfix release?
On Tuesday, December 8, 2015, 21:45:31, Darshit Shah wrote:
> With my last set of patches, we have fixed all the issues reported /
> identified
> after the 1.17 release. Hence, maybe we should consider releasing a 1.17.1
> bugfix release?
Here's another one that I thought was already fixed, but
Jernej Simončič writes:
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015, 21:45:31, Darshit Shah wrote:
>
>> With my last set of patches, we have fixed all the issues reported /
>> identified
>> after the 1.17 release. Hence, maybe we should consider releasing a 1.17.1
>> bugfix release?
>
> Sorry about reporting
On Tuesday, December 8, 2015, 21:45:31, Darshit Shah wrote:
> With my last set of patches, we have fixed all the issues reported /
> identified
> after the 1.17 release. Hence, maybe we should consider releasing a 1.17.1
> bugfix release?
Sorry about reporting this late, it forgot about it a bit
The regression fix has already been pushed.
Tim
On Wednesday 09 December 2015 08:44:28 Darshit Shah wrote:
> On 12/09, Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
> >Darshit Shah writes:
> >> With my last set of patches, we have fixed all the issues reported /
> >> identified after the 1.17 release. Hence, maybe w
On 12/09, Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
Darshit Shah writes:
With my last set of patches, we have fixed all the issues reported /
identified after the 1.17 release. Hence, maybe we should consider
releasing a 1.17.1 bugfix release?
yes, we should do that. I can tag a new release tomorrow or on F
Darshit Shah writes:
> With my last set of patches, we have fixed all the issues reported /
> identified after the 1.17 release. Hence, maybe we should consider
> releasing a 1.17.1 bugfix release?
yes, we should do that. I can tag a new release tomorrow or on Friday.
Regards,
Giuseppe
On 08 Dec 2015 21:45, Darshit Shah wrote:
> With my last set of patches, we have fixed all the issues reported /
> identified
> after the 1.17 release. Hence, maybe we should consider releasing a 1.17.1
> bugfix release?
a bugfix release would be great. specifically, one that builds when
IPv6
With my last set of patches, we have fixed all the issues reported / identified
after the 1.17 release. Hence, maybe we should consider releasing a 1.17.1
bugfix release?
--
Thanking You,
Darshit Shah
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
17 matches
Mail list logo
