2008/3/29 Kamil Dziedzic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Patryk Zawadzki wrote: > > It's not a valid URI to put in spec. Not if you want to be able to > > freely switch between different URI schemas (http:// vs. ftp:// is a > > good enough example). > Do we need this? Where and for what?
For using distfiles. > I know that and this only explains why wget saves files with everything > after "?" and also explains why we don't use name given by webbrowser. This > is > obvious. But this still doesn't explain why you refuse to serve wget encoded > name part of URL when downloading from distfiles (especially when builder > script could even distinguish if file was downloaded from http or ftp because > it has such information in spec - but this is not required). Soon we will get rpm that is capable of downloading files on its own. It's likely that it will behave in a more standardized way than wget. Such URIs will pose a problem at some point in time. > Please tell me what this will brake. What will/could fail after encoding name > when getting files from distfiles? For me this is correct fix i don't > understand why You telling its not? I just want some example;) See above. wget is not the only downloader on the planet. > > If you want to fix anything, I'd suggest fixing the spec by using an > > unambiguous URI. > Its not unambiguous, its correct. If I write at the beginning http then its > obvious that this is a http:// URI. If I will write ftp:// then its obvious > that this will be a ftp URI. Builder also has this information and could even > decide what to do when getting files from distfiles. The URI is correct but wget's behavior is non-standard. It should not include the question mark and the params in the file name and distfiles/builder should not depend on it. -- Patryk Zawadzki PLD Linux Distribution _______________________________________________ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
