Re: [Bug-wget] Wget2 plans (Was Re: PATCH: tests for SSL)

[Tim Rühsen]

Hi Vijo,

On Samstag, 29. April 2017 21:46:46 CEST Vijo Cherian wrote:
> Some questions regarding the plans for wget2:
> 
> 1, Is it expected to have some compatibility with wget? especially wrt
> commandline options.

We try to be backward compatible with options (name and functionality). But 
it's not a must. We are free to fix bugs or change/extend behavior. That's why 
we call the executable 'wget2'. It can be installed in parallel to 'wget'.

Currently there is no plan for FTP(S), it's an obsolete protocol and we have 
wget1.x for it. And even if we want to, I tend to create an own executable, 
e.g. 'wget2-ftp'.

We also have no real plan for WARC, except that we discussed about having a 
libwget-warc in the future with some WARC tools around it. But no need right 
now.

Most basic options of wget1.x already work in wget2, see https://gitlab.com/
gnuwget/wget2/wikis/home for pretty recent list. So replacing wget by wget2 in 
scripts might work out in many or most cases.

>     Are we OK to (potentially) break some scripts that  depend on certain
> behavior from wget?

If it breaks, we have to look at the details why it does. E.g. if it's a 
missing option, we can add it. If it's a bug we fix it.

> 2, Are there a list of target OSes that wget2 is supposed to run on?

We already have it working on (recent) GNU/Linux, BSD, OSX, Solaris, Windows 
(Cygwin, MinGW, MSVC). Since we are backed by gnulib, most portability issues 
should be covered. But wget2 needs a C99 compiler.

> 3, What older servers do we care about, regarding compatibility?

None. gnulib should do this for us. Of course we are open to fixes / patches, 
but we can't help very much with testing.

With Best Regards, Tim

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.