Re: [Bug-wget] Features request

[address@hidden]

Darshit Shah wrote:
> On 11/01, address@hidden wrote:
> > >  a case, what would be the expected outcome? Should Wget delete the 
> > > larger file? Or retain it?
> > It should delete partial file.The full file must not be downloaded , 
> > the download will stop when downloaded stuff reaches limit.For 
> > example ,/maxsize 100000 while downloading 100 Mb file without size 
> > in header - stops at 10 Mb and deletes the downloaded chunk.
>
> I'm not too sure if this is feature is required. But if you already 
> have it implemented, do share it on this list and we may consider 
> merging it into the codebase.
I have it,but in old compilation of version 1.9, will try to compile 
the last one
> nderstand. I would suggest you give a concrete example with a real URL 
> and the corresponding filename.
>
> It seems like you're on Windows and Wget creates some filename which 
> Windows refuses to create. We may only have to rename the output 
> filenames for Windows in that case. Do provide a precise example so 
> that we can understand the problem better.
I will send as I will find one
> >  also related to bad names. With -N -O the wget can look at timestamp 
> > of file named as written in "-O". Please explain why this is not OK.
> I don't understand what you're asking for. Could you please be more 
> clear on your position as to why -N and -O have a use-case when used 
> together?
> >
 The usage is keeping a file up to date when the output  provides bad. 
Either the file cannot be created or working with bad name is not 
convenient. The process runs automatically periodically.wget -O file.bin 
-N http://dsjdjfkfkfdfd... - either tells "the file is not newer" or 
downloads new version.If the download fails - it keeps
old file. Then following batches process the data accordingly.