bug-wget
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-wget] Feature: Disabling progress bar when wget is backgrounded


From: Tim Ruehsen
Subject: Re: [Bug-wget] Feature: Disabling progress bar when wget is backgrounded
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 10:27:49 +0200
User-agent: KMail/4.14.2 (Linux/4.1.0-2-amd64; KDE/4.14.2; x86_64; ; )

Thanks, the patch has been pushed.

Regards, Tim

On Wednesday 09 September 2015 10:03:14 Tim Ruehsen wrote:
> Thanks, Christian.
> 
> I made a few tests (on Linux) with --progress=bar, ctrl-z + 'bg'. Than put
> wget to foreground again with 'fg'. Doing it again and again with a good
> user experience from my side.
> 
> A very short and elegant patch !
> 
> If nobody complains, I'll push it.
> 
> Regards, Tim
> 
> On Tuesday 08 September 2015 16:29:18 Christian Neukirchen wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Sometimes I start wget, but the remote site is too slow, so I rather
> > want to run it in background, however when I simply use job control
> > for that, wget will keep spewing the progress bar all over my
> > terminal.  I have found the SIGHUP/SIGUSR1 feature to redirect output
> > to a log file, but I think the following small patch is even more
> > useful, since the progress bar will simply resume when wget is
> > foregrounded again (also, the final message is still printed to the
> > terminal in any case):
> > 
> > --- src/progress.c
> > +++ src/progress.c
> > @@ -1179,10 +1179,12 @@ create_image (struct bar_progress *bp, double
> > dl_total_time, bool done) static void
> > 
> >  display_image (char *buf)
> >  {
> > 
> > -  bool old = log_set_save_context (false);
> > -  logputs (LOG_PROGRESS, "\r");
> > -  logputs (LOG_PROGRESS, buf);
> > -  log_set_save_context (old);
> > +  if (tcgetpgrp (fileno (stderr)) == getpid ()) {
> > +    bool old = log_set_save_context (false);
> > +    logputs (LOG_PROGRESS, "\r");
> > +    logputs (LOG_PROGRESS, buf);
> > +    log_set_save_context (old);
> > +  }
> > 
> >  }
> >  
> >  static void
> > 
> > This probably needs some guards for portability to all platforms.
> > Only tested on Linux 4.1 so far.
> > 
> > Opinions?




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]