On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 11:58:32PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > On Thursday 13 March 2008, Philip Hands wrote: > > OK, the next attempt: > > http://hands.com/~phil/d-i/fetch-url-2.diff > > http://hands.com/~phil/d-i/wget404-2.diff > > Almost there...
Jolly Good (and thanks for spotting the goofs reintroduced by my git fumble) > +++ b/packages/debian-installer-utils/README > + -r repeat failed attempts (currently up to 3 times) > > -r only repeats 2 times in current code. IMO that should be enough. > The rationale is that it makes more sense to do an additional repeat if you > got at least something than when you got an outright failure. So, 2 full > attempts and 3 continuation retries. > (same goes for README.preseed_fetch) Yeah, I think I had a better version than that at one point, but I think it's now better than it ever was so that's good. ... > For -c I'm missing the comment that it should only be used if the > correctness of the file can be checked (as in README.preseed_fetch). Done. > Maybe reduce the duplication between debian-installer-utils/README and > README.preseed_fetch a bit (just refer to the first in the second)? Done > +++ b/packages/debian-installer-utils/fetch-url > The vars ALLOW_CONTINUES and DO_REPEAT should be initialized. > I'd suggest to initialize to "", then set to 1. We can then just test for > [ "$DO_REPEAT" ] (i.e. without ' = yes'). Fair enough -- done. > +++ b/packages/preseed/debian/changelog > + * split out fetch-url from preseed_fetch to allow for > + it's use for downloading without interfering with the > + preseed relative path magic > > s/it's/its/ well spotted :-) > > P.S. I did something a little odd with git earlier -- while I'm 99% > > certain I've got back to where I was, I've not had chance to do all the > > tests to make sure -- please point out anything that looks out of place. > > Yeah, git is really, really great once you learn to work with it, but in the > beginning it can trip you up. Early on I lost about 4 hours work one time > (which I managed to reproduce in about 45 minutes :-). But it was a great > help with the complex patch set I just did for localechooser, allowing to > fix mistakes in earlier patches, change the order of patches, etc. Yeah, I'm _really_ liking it so far -- actually, I did something with git reset that seemed to be a mistake, but was very encouraged to find that git fsck showed me the lost branches (mostly) so I get the impression that you have to do something pretty radical to really lose work. > - second patch has bogus changelog entry for preseed (you don't change > anything there) Yeah, that was a hangover from the lost patch I'm thinking. > - the second patch should not open new changelog entry for di-utils, but > just add to the one opened in the first patch; they have to be separate > commits, not separate uploads Wasn't sure about that -- fixed. So, here we go again: http://hands.com/~phil/d-i/fetch-url-3.diff http://hands.com/~phil/d-i/wget404-3.diff and http://hands.com/~phil/d-i/fetch+wget-3.diff Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] http://www.hands.com/ |-| HANDS.COM Ltd. http://www.uk.debian.org/ |(| 10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London E18 1NE ENGLAND -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
