Dan Harkless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don't cc me when posting to wget, please. I don't need two copies.
>
> ZIGLIO Frediano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In my opinion rollback should be added for two problem:
> > - the file change
> > - the proxy return unwanted data
> >
> > The rollback without verify resolve first problem but not second
> > The rollback with full verify resolve second but not first
> >
> > An example:
> > G garbage dsata
> > D downloaded file correctly
> > C download continued
> >
> > Now you download a file you can obtain something like this (garbage for bad
> > proxy):
> > DDDDDDDDG
> > In current implementation of wget you finally obtain:
> > DDDDDDDDGCCCCCC
> > That is a wrong file
> > If you rollback before continuing you can obtain
> > DDDDDDDCCCCCCCC
> > That is correct ... if file didn't change!
>
> It'd be a lot simpler and would handle almost all continuing-download-of-a-
> file-that-has-changed-on-server cases if we made it so if you specify both
> -c and -N, wget checks the timestamp on the local file vs. the one on the
> server, and if the one on the server is newer, it restarts the download from
> scratch.
I forgot to add that the timestamp method is superior to the
"rollback-verify" method in tons of cases because a file can change without
the specific portion you're checking having changed.
In any case, I've just added this to the TODO.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Harkless | To help prevent SPAM contamination,
GNU Wget co-maintainer | please do not mention this email
http://sunsite.dk/wget/ | address in Usenet posts -- thank you.
