On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 04:16:24PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote: > On [12/02/05 16:12], Matt Kraai wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 11:45:28PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > > > I'm following up on bug report 285568 about dput aborting on ftp error. > > > I think the ugly traceback has been banned, so we need to decide how to > > > proceed with resolving the bug. > > > I'm pretty much convinced that the current behaviour of stopping the > > > upload on error is the right thing to do. > > > As such, I basically see three options to resolve this bug: > > > - Have dput print out a note about removing files with dcut when the > > > error 553 (Action not taken, file name not allowed) occurs, > > > - Adding an FAQ entry about using dcut when 553 occurs, > > > - Not doing anything and just close the bug. > > > > FTP error 553 seems specific enough to put out a warning message (we can > > > assume our filenames to be innocent enough unless someone fabricates > > > packages with funny names), so I'm kind of leaning towards just doing > > > that. > > > I think having dput suggest dcut when this error occurs would be fine. > > It would be even cooler if it removed it automatically. > > I would be in favour of solution 1, which means printing a note. But > about removing the file: On the one hand I'm not sure if removing the > file automatically is a really good idea. And on the other hand I'm not > sure if it's always possible to remove the file. Won't there be ftp > servers who refuse to remove the file, when you ask them too?
I don't know, but dcut works, right? -- Matt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
