Date: 29 Apr 2000 14:50:55 +0200 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no> To: arch@freebsd.org Subject: fetch(1) Message-ID: <xzp4s8lqde8.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I've had a fetch(3)-based version of fetch(1) in my tree for nearly a
year... It implements all options except:
-A (libfetch currently does not follow redirects, this may change
when I rewrite the http code)
-b (libfetch does not use code that triggers the bug in question)
-r (libfetch doesn't know about offsets, but I plan to change that
soon)
-t (libfetch does not use code that triggers the bug in question)
and possibly options that have been added to fetch(1) after I last
synched my version with the one in the tree.
I also know of a few bugs that have been fixed in our fetch(1) which I
haven't fixed in my version yet (e.g. support for the year 19100 bug)
but will be as soon as I have an hour or two to work on it.
Size comparison:
source code stripped binary
current version 3487 loc 38596 bytes
libfetch version 533 loc 9852 bytes
So, any arguments for or against importing it into -CURRENT?
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzp4s8lqde8.fsf>