Still trying to keep the list informed about the progress in this case ;-)
----- Weitergeleitete Nachricht von Mauro Tortonesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-----
Datum: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 17:29:15 +0200
Von: Mauro Tortonesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Antwort an: Mauro Tortonesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Betreff: Re: fix: don't send HEAD if -O is given
An: Jochen Roderburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 16:22:59 +0200
Jochen Roderburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Zitat von Jochen Roderburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > So the little difference was that this version did a (IMHO) unnecessary HEAD
> > request in the case timestamping and no local file present. Not a big
problem
> > as such, but a side effect was that it created more cases for the other
> > timestamp bug that I reported (timestamp for the local file is taken from
the
> > HEAD request and not from the GET request).
>
> I think I remember now the motivation for this "unnecessary" HEAD request.
> It *is* necessary as part of the support for getting the filename from the
> "Content-Disposition" header. To know with which local file to compare you
have
> to get the headers from the server.
yes, support for Content-Disposition HTTP header was the reason for which i had
to change wget's behaviour to send a HEAD HTTP request before the actual file
retrieval. so, one can't claim that the preliminary HEAD request is
"unnecessary". however, it can (and should in fact be) skipped if -O or
--no-content-disposition are given.
> So I think the erroneous patch can simply be retracted. I don't know if there
> was any other additional issue with the "-O" option. In older versions there
> was the case, that with -O wget still looked at local files of the same name
> than the remote file, but I think this does not happen anymore because it
> already does no longer allow -O and timestamping together.
no, as i mentioned above, we should avoid sending HEAD if -O or
--no-content-disposition are given. therefore, we can't simply get rid of the
changes introduced by the buggy patch i submitted, but we need to fix and keep
them.
anyway, thank you very much for your bugreport. i just fixed the problem with my
buggy patch in my local repository. i will clean up the changes and commit them
tomorrow at most.
> The remaining "real" bug is that the timestamp for the local file is taken
from
> the HEAD request and not from the GET request. Details for that are in the
list
> archive in http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09303.html
i am working on this issue as well.
--
Mauro Tortonesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
----- Ende der weitergeleiteten Nachricht -----
