[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Bug-wget] --progress should not be overridden by --quiet

From: Tomas Hozza
Subject: Re: [Bug-wget] --progress should not be overridden by --quiet
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 04:34:10 -0400 (EDT)

----- Original Message -----
> We have a user in Fedora (
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1068834)
> > which thinks that --progress option should not be overridden by the --quiet
> > option.
> >
> > The rationale behind this is that when users run a script then they may
> > want to see the progress of potentially long download, but don't want
> > to be informed for example about 302 redirections.
> >
> I understand the motivation behind such a request. I can cite another use
> case too. Sometimes you have an external application calling Wget to download
> multiple files. Often times, all you want to see is the progress status and 
> nothing else.
> This is something I use regularly for downloading the update packages on my 
> Arch
> Linux system.
> > The reporter of the Fedora bug would like to see the progress bar on stdout,
> > but as Micah Cowan stated it is really bad idea, mainly because stdout is
> > intended for core data (especially when using "wget -O -".
> >
> >
> > As an example idea, the ability to pass the descriptor number to the
> > --progress option was proposed, for example "--progress=bar,1" or any other.
> >
> I would instead try to introduce a new verbosity level which is more like
> --progress-only. I'm not sure how everyone here feels about editing the 
> output in
> --non-verbose mode. I have seen a few feature requests for changing 
> --non-verbose to display
> the progress bar only.
> > Although I think that the request seems to be valid, I personally think the
> > current behaviour is correct. It seems more like a feature request.
> >
> I think this is a valid feature request. Currently, I am maintaining a
> separate patch-set
> which causes Wget to output, to stderr, only the progress bar when passed
> the -nv switch. It is not production quality, but if there is a demand for the
> same, I could clean it up and submit a patch.

I think that would be great. From my point of view, the new verbosity
level option makes more sense as it would not change the existing wget

Thanks for your reply and for mentioning your patch-set.


Tomas Hozza

reply via email to

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