Re: [Bug-wget] [PATCH] Improve handling of SSL/TLS alerts with GnuTLS.

2013-05-06 Thread Tim Ruehsen
Hi, thanks for your work to improve wget ! Are you shure, there are no other non-fatal return values ? e.g. GNUTLS_E_REHANDSHAKE AFAIK, a GnuTLS example that also uses a handshake loop, but relies completely on gnutls_error_is_fatal(): // simplified version without timeout handling do {

Re: [Bug-wget] [PATCH] Improve handling of SSL/TLS alerts with GnuTLS.

2013-05-06 Thread mancha
Hi. You are right that GNUTLS_E_WARNING_ALERT_RECEIVED is not the only non-fatal return value. In GnuTLS 2.12.x there's GNUTLS_E_INTERRUPTED, GNUTLS_E_REHANDSHAKE, GNUTLS_E_WARNING_IA_IPHF_RECEIVED, and GNUTLS_E_WARNING_IA_FPHF_RECEIVED. My patch only addresses non-fatal *alerts* (a subset of no

Re: [Bug-wget] [PATCH] Improve handling of SSL/TLS alerts with GnuTLS.

2013-05-06 Thread Tim Rühsen
Ok, thanks. Your patch should go into git. Looks like, handling other non-fatal events needs some deeper knowledge (except GNUTLS_E_INTERRUPTED, which should not occur). Whenever the need arises... Regards, Tim Am Montag, 6. Mai 2013 schrieb mancha: > Hi. > > You are right that GNUTLS_E_WARNI

Re: [Bug-wget] Segmentation fault with current development version of wget

2013-05-06 Thread Darshit Shah
> This paragraph: > > "The 307 (Temporary Redirect) status code indicates that the target > resource resides temporarily under a different URI and the user agent > MUST NOT change the request method if it performs an automatic > redirection to that URI. Since the redirection can change over tim

Re: [Bug-wget] [PATCH] Improve handling of SSL/TLS alerts with GnuTLS.

2013-05-06 Thread Giuseppe Scrivano
Tim Rühsen writes: > Ok, thanks. > > Your patch should go into git. > > Looks like, handling other non-fatal events needs some deeper knowledge > (except GNUTLS_E_INTERRUPTED, which should not occur). > Whenever the need arises... Indeed. Thanks for your contribution! I have done a trivial ch

Re: [Bug-wget] Segmentation fault with current development version of wget

2013-05-06 Thread Giuseppe Scrivano
Darshit Shah writes: > While DELETE *may* be redirected, the document did not mention > anything explicitly about it. From what I gauge, we should not suspend > a DELETE command upon a redirect. We suspend the post data only when we receive a 307, or do you mean we shouldn't suspend in this case

Re: [Bug-wget] Segmentation fault with current development version of wget

2013-05-06 Thread Darshit Shah
> > We suspend the post data only when we receive a 307, or do you mean we > shouldn't suspend in this case too? > > It's the other way round. A 307 response code is used when the server wishes to explicitly ask the client to not suspend. And that is also the current behaviour. We currently suspen

Re: [Bug-wget] IMPORTANT CHANGES Re: Wget Wgiki

2013-05-06 Thread Micah Cowan
...AND... apparently the entire wiki's data has somehow completely disappeared in the last 10 hours. I have backups, but a recent change regarding RESTfulness by Darshit will have gone kablooey (along with the work I did to perform massive culls of spammy pages and users, which will have to be redo