[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-wget] General Testsuite issue

From: Darshit Shah
Subject: Re: [Bug-wget] General Testsuite issue
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 15:18:28 +0530

Till we decide on a restructure, here is the patch for --no-config.

This patch is made against master, but is required in parallel-wget too.
@Giuseppe: Maybe you could cherry pick this? Or merge master into
parallel-wget, especially since we've just released a new version.

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Darshit Shah <address@hidden> wrote:

> > The --config option is detected just before the other options by running
>> > the same loop a little earlier. However, to same CPU cycles, we break
>> out
>> > of the loop as soon as --config is identified. I have extended that
>> loop so
>> > that it detects --no-config too and breaks out the moment either one of
>> > these is seen. Hence, only the first instance is acted upon, while the
>> > others are silently discarded.
>> Thanks for making this point clear.
>> I don't understand the reason for the --config exception and I would
>> definitely implement it in a different way... but changing it will break
>> compatibility.
> The reason for having the separate loop is as follows:
> In case the user wants to use a config file that is not /etc/wgetrc and
> ~/.wgetrc, then they may use the --config option. However, We tend to
> initialize the settings from these files before beginning to read the
> command line arguments. This would cause wrong settings to be read from the
> default config files. Hence, we run a loop to simply check for the --config
> option and then parse the given wgetrc file before parsing the rest of the
> options.
> I have simply added another check to that first loop. I too would like to
> implement this in a different manner. Do you have any ideas that we could
> use to implement this?
> There's a couple of implementation ideas I currently have, but I'll have
> to go back to the code and check its feasibility first. If it looks
> possible, I'll send a new RFC with the precise details of how I intend to
> implement this.
> --
> Thanking You,
> Darshit Shah

Thanking You,
Darshit Shah

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]