On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 17:15:52 +0200
Mauro Tortonesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The fix will appear in the next release, 1.11. Mauro's paragraph you
> > quoted (beginning with "i am going to test and apply your patch later
> > this week") referred to applying the patch to the version control
>
Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
Vladimir Volovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
"MT" == Mauro Tortonesi writes:
>> are there any news on the wget update?
MT> hrvoje fixed this problem more than one month ago. from the
MT> ChangeLog:
i don't see the official source at ftp.gnu.org/gnu/wget/
that's what i'
Vladimir Volovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "MT" == Mauro Tortonesi writes:
>
> >> are there any news on the wget update?
>
> MT> hrvoje fixed this problem more than one month ago. from the
> MT> ChangeLog:
>
> i don't see the official source at ftp.gnu.org/gnu/wget/
>
> that's what i'm ask
"MT" == Mauro Tortonesi writes:
>> are there any news on the wget update?
MT> hrvoje fixed this problem more than one month ago. from the
MT> ChangeLog:
i don't see the official source at ftp.gnu.org/gnu/wget/
that's what i'm asking about.
Best,
v.
Vladimir Volovich wrote:
"MT" == Mauro Tortonesi writes:
>> I addressed this "bug" in wget few months ago. See the fix here:
>>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/wget@sunsite.dk/msg08516.html
MT> hi frank,
MT> i am going to test and apply your patch later this week, as well
MT> as many o
"MT" == Mauro Tortonesi writes:
>> I addressed this "bug" in wget few months ago. See the fix here:
>>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/wget@sunsite.dk/msg08516.html
MT> hi frank,
MT> i am going to test and apply your patch later this week, as well
MT> as many other pending patches. unfort
Mauro Tortonesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> i am going to test and apply your patch later this week [...]
Here is the change in the form of a patch. It removes all the
unnecessary code, not only the two offending lines, but is in essence
equivalent to the change as originally suggested by Fran
Frank McCown wrote:
Vladimir Volovich wrote:
"DV" == Dmitry Vereschaka writes:
>> suppose that i run
>> >> wget -r -l 1 http://some-host.com/index.html
>> >> and index.html contains a link like this:
>> >> file
>>
DV> URL ../directory/file.html placed in
DV> http://some-host.com/ind
Vladimir Volovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> E.g., Apache 2.0 does complain on requests like "GET
> /../dir/file.html HTTP/1.0" with "HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request" so wget
> will not work properly at all.
Wget's implementation is reflects rfc1808, which explicitly requires
all extraneous ".." path
"FM" == Frank McCown writes:
DV> URL ../directory/file.html placed in
DV> http://some-host.com/index.html is illegal because no parent
DV> directory for /index.html exists.
>> it is "legal". it works everywhere else. that's why i ask to
>> normalize the URL properly.
FM> The URL is "legal"
Vladimir Volovich wrote:
"DV" == Dmitry Vereschaka writes:
>> suppose that i run
>>
>> wget -r -l 1 http://some-host.com/index.html
>>
>> and index.html contains a link like this:
>>
>> file
>>
DV> URL ../directory/file.html placed in
DV> http://some-host.com/index.html is illega
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Vladimir Volovich wrote:
> suppose that i run
>
> wget -r -l 1 http://some-host.com/index.html
>
> and index.html contains a link like this:
>
> file
>
URL ../directory/file.html placed in http://some-host.com/index.html is
illegal because no parent directory for /index.
"DV" == Dmitry Vereschaka writes:
>> suppose that i run
>>
>> wget -r -l 1 http://some-host.com/index.html
>>
>> and index.html contains a link like this:
>>
>> file
>>
DV> URL ../directory/file.html placed in
DV> http://some-host.com/index.html is illegal because no parent
DV> dir
Greetings,
[wget version: 1.10.2]
suppose that i run
wget -r -l 1 http://some-host.com/index.html
and index.html contains a link like this:
file
then wget, when it tries to download this file, sends the following
HTTP request:
GET /../directory/file.html HTTP/1.0
instead of
GET /direct
14 matches
Mail list logo
