Re: [Bug-wget] New option "--no-list-a"

[Andrea Urbani]

Hello Ángel,

I wrote "some systems" because in the sources is written:

 /* 2008-01-29 SMS. For a VMS FTP server, where "LIST -a" may not
 fail, but will never do what is desired here, skip directly to the
 simple "LIST" command (assumed to be the last one in the list).
 */

so the problem with the "LIST -a" is at more systems than just info-zip.org.

About to try "LIST -a" and, if you get an empty list, to try a "LIST" is good 
for me, thinking, in particular, to end users that just ask for the download of 
a file and they are expecting to have it, without to try again with a new 
parameter to let this download work.

However, about storing download parameters according to the destination address 
I think this is no necessary.


I am new here and so I don't know how the things go.
For me (my use of wget) the new parameter is fine and works well, but for the 
public? Have I to send another patch with "LIST in case of empty LIST -a"? Or 
will anybody else do it? Or have we to reach a common solution to the problem? 
Or have we to wait for the maintainer choice?

Please, let me know

Thank you
Andrea
----- Original Message -----
From: Ángel González
Sent: 08/29/13 11:43 PM
To: Andrea Urbani
Subject: Re: [Bug-wget] New option "--no-list-a"

On 25/08/13 14:10, Andrea Urbani wrote: > Good afternoon, > some systems (at 
least info-zip.org) have problems with the ftp command "LIST -a". > (...) 
Thanks for the detailed report. :) > 150 List started. > done. > > [<=> ] 0 
--.-K/s in 0s > > Closed fd 4 > 226 Transfer completed. > 2013-08-25 06:40:42 
(0.00 B/s) - â.listingâ saved [0] > > that means no errors but also an empty 
list of files. > Within the attached patch I have added a new parameter, 
--no-list-a, that tells WGET just to use the "LIST" command. > If you try the 
new parameter I'm not convinced that creating a new option is the solution. I 
would prefer that if the first LIST -a returns an empty list, it retries just 
with LIST to detect if it's a server without this (which is likely, we don't 
even have . and ..) Naturally, if there ever was a working LIST -a *or* LIST 
worked but LIST -a failed, would be remembered for the following requests to 
this host.