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

[Darshit Shah]

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Tomas Hozza <address@hidden> wrote:

> ----- 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
> behaviour.
>
> Thanks for your reply and for mentioning your patch-set.
>
Great! I'll work on the patch set when I get the time. And will also
implement
the same as a new verbosity level.

>
>
-- 
Thanking You,
Darshit Shah