Thomas Reinke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does raise an interesting question re
> a bug introduced by the patch - is https://HOST the the same host
> when it is referred to as http://HOST?
Good question. After first, second, and third thought, I'd say yes.
But then I remembered that Wget, rig
Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
>
> Thomas Reinke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Ok, either I've completely misread wget, or it has a problem
> > mirroring SSL sites. It appears that it is deciding that the
> > https:// scheme is something that is "not to be followed".
>
> That's a bug. Your patch
Thomas Reinke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, either I've completely misread wget, or it has a problem
> mirroring SSL sites. It appears that it is deciding that the
> https:// scheme is something that is "not to be followed".
That's a bug. Your patch is close to how it should be fixed, with
Ok, either I've completely misread wget, or it has a problem
mirroring SSL sites. It appears that it is deciding that
the https:// scheme is something that is "not to be followed".
For those interested, the offending code appears to be 3 lines
in recur.c, which, if changed treat the HTTPS schema
