[Python-bugs-list] [ python-Bugs-495693 ] urllib doesn't support passive FTP

[noreply@sourceforge.net]

Bugs item #495693, was opened at 2001-12-20 16:51
You can respond by visiting: 
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=495693&group_id=5470

Category: Python Library
Group: Python 2.2.1 candidate
>Status: Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Matthias Klose (doko)
>Assigned to: Michael Hudson (mwh)
Summary: urllib doesn't support passive FTP

Initial Comment:
[please CC 40981@bugs.debian.org on replies; complete 
report can be found at http://bugs.debian.org/40981]

urllib.urlopen/urlretrieve doesn't support passive FTP

urllib doesn't support passive FTP, even though the 
underlying ftplib
module does.  I dunno what the right approach is 
(perhaps a urllib
module global variable).  I know some tools (I'm aware 
of at least
ncftp and wget) autodetect whether PASV is supported 
by FTP servers;
perhaps that intelligence could be added to ftplib.

(Also: the FTP class's set_pasv() method isn't 
documented in my
version of python-docs; I haven't checked the new 
1.5.2 docs yet
however.)

At the moment, I'm using this ugly hack to get around 
it:

# Really ugly hack; don't try this at home:
def ftpwrapper_init(self):
    import ftplib
    self.busy = 0
    self.ftp = ftplib.FTP()
    self.ftp.set_pasv(1)
    self.ftp.connect(self.host, self.port)
    self.ftp.login(self.user, self.passwd)
    for dir in self.dirs:
        self.ftp.cwd(dir)

urllib.ftpwrapper.init = ftpwrapper_init
# End really ugly hack


----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Michael Hudson (mwh)
Date: 2002-02-22 06:05

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=6656

This was ported to the branch some time ago (by me, in fact).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum)
Date: 2001-12-27 22:05

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=6380

For a more configurable urllib, try urllib2. If that doesn't
what you want, please submit a new bug report or feature
request.

I'm leaving this open only because the bugfix is a 2.2.1
candidate; the problem is fixed in CVS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Matthias Klose (doko)
Date: 2001-12-27 09:54

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=60903

[Martin, I'll summarize in the Debian BTS, typo in bug 
number, it's #40891]

The original report (as I read it),wanted to have a 
configurable urllib.ftpwrapper. So probably adding another 
argument "mode" to ftpwrapper.__init__ ?


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum)
Date: 2001-12-23 05:56

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=6380

Right now I have this listed as a bug, with fix, in
python.org/2.2/bugs.html. When we get more, I agree that
MoinMoin would be a good idea.

I've checked in the fix on the trunk. This is definitely a
2.2.1 release candidate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Martin v. Löwis (loewis)
Date: 2001-12-23 03:16

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=21627

Yes, that is quite unfortunate, and an error. In itojun's
original patch, there was still self.passiveserver=0 in the
context (it was against 1.46). That patch did not apply
after your changes (in 1.48 and 1.52) anymore, so I asked
him to regenerate the patches, but neither of us noticed
that particular change.

I'll attach the obvious change below; perhaps we should
revive the MoinMoin pages to distribute hotfixes?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum)
Date: 2001-12-22 07:08

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=6380

Martin, in ftplib.py, there's a self.passiveserver = 0" in
the connect method that overrides the default "passiveserver
= 1" at the class level.  This was introduced in rev. 1.54
when you integrated IPV6 support.

Shouldn't this be taken out?  Rev 1.48 announces "default to
passive mode". The IPV6 patch must have broken this.

(I'm sorry I didn't look at this before the release; this is
an unfortunate glitch in 2.2!)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Martin v. Löwis (loewis)
Date: 2001-12-22 06:51

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=21627

Is the debian bug number correct? The URL gives
"An error occurred. Dammit. Error was: Couldn't get bug
status: No such file or directory."

Also, CC'ing the Debian BTS is not easy through SF, would it
be feasible that you forward all comments to the BTS yourself?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=495693&group_id=5470