On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 02:51:54PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 14:41 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 10:34:30AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > > > there shouldn't be any difference in those two commands at all. > > > > Can you replicate this and tcpdump it? > > > Okay, got some tcpdump output at: > > > <http://lbugs.bu.edu/show_bug.cgi?id=4741> > > > > (Plus some more.) > > I've looked at that bug and it makes no sense. :) > > ie: urlgrabber works just fine, it seems. > > if you run urlgrabber in a loop downloading all the files you can does > it ever fail with the timeout error? Well, urlgrabber (the Package) has a "timeout" option which may be getting used from yum and not from the "urlgrabber" executable. For a proper comparison, we should make sure that the function is getting called the same way. I suspect that's why you're seeing the difference, though. Now, assuming that's it, the timeout error is just that: a timeout error. This is probably not a bug in the code, although it could be. URLGrabber has been Thoroughly tested with NAT. My home desktop is behind a NAT linux box, so I routinely use it that way. I see that the timeout option doesn't appear in the unit tests, though, so it's possible that there's a conflict that got missed. Anyway, are we sure that the timeout isn't a "legitimate" timeout? -Michael -- Michael D. Stenner mstenner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ECE Department, the University of Arizona 520-626-1619 1230 E. Speedway Blvd., Tucson, AZ 85721-0104 ECE 524G
