From owner-freebsd-ports Mon Jan 8 7:10:34 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4C4637B404 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 07:10:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA94011; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:10:12 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from des@ofug.org) X-URL: http://www.ofug.org/~des/ X-Disclaimer: The views expressed in this message do not necessarily coincide with those of any organisation or company with which I am or have been affiliated. To: Steve Price Cc: Ilya Martynov , freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Is there any reason for FETCH_BEFORE_ARGS? References: <20010108083248.R86473@bonsai.knology.net> From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 08 Jan 2001 16:10:11 +0100 In-Reply-To: Steve Price's message of "Mon, 8 Jan 2001 08:32:48 -0600" Message-ID: Lines: 19 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Steve Price writes: > On the contrary, it never occurred to me at the time that the > problem might be with fetch(1). Sorry, but I imagined that having a URL that ftp(1) could fetch but fetch(1) couldn't was a pretty strong indication that there was a bug in fetch(1) (or possibly a bug in the server which fetch(1) needed to be taught to work around). This is not about doing things "my way", it's about simple, basic common sense. I'll go so far as to state that any condition of the type "the file is present on the FTP or HTTP server and can be retrieved using some other tool (e.g. wget) but not using fetch(1)" should be considered a bug in fetch(1) and reported to the fetch(1) maintainer (currently yours truly). DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message