On 10/26/07, Josh Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/26/07, Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And, of course, when I say "there would be two Wgets", what I really > > mean by that is that the more exotic-featured one would be something > > else entirely than a Wget, and would have a separate name. > > I think the idea of having two Wgets is good. I too have been > concerned about the resources required in creating the all-out version > 2.0. The current code for Wget is a bit mangled, but I think the basic > concepts surrounding it are very good ones. Although the code might > suck for those trying to read it, I think it could be very great with > a little regular maintenance.
Perhaps the little wget could be called "wg". A quick google and wikipedia search shows no real namespace collisions. > There still remains the question, though, of whether version 2 will > require a complete rewrite. Considering how fundamental these changes > are, I don't think we would have much of a choice. You mentioned that > they could share code for recursion, but I don't see how. IIRC, the > code for recursion in the current version is very dependent on the > current methods of operation. It would probably have to be rewritten > to be shared. > > As for libcurl, I see no reason why not. Also, would these be two > separate GNU projects? Would they be packaged in the same source code, > like finch and pidgin? > > I do believe the next question at hand is what version 2's official > mascot will be. I purpose Lenny the tortoise ;) Oooh- confusion with Debian testing > _ .----. > Lenny -> (_\/ \_, > 'uu----uu~' > -- Best Regards. Please keep in touch.
