Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 50 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign upGitHub is where the world builds software
Millions of developers and companies build, ship, and maintain their software on GitHub — the largest and most advanced development platform in the world.
update mtime file if it already exist #11417
Comments
|
Sorry, but that's impossible. mtime value is from HTTP's By the way, as CDNs are popular nowadays, the same video may return different URLs each time and have different |
|
ok for the corollary part then, but my main point, is still feasible : if I run a download several time with |
|
The semantic of |
|
thanks ! didn't knew of that options. |
Please follow the guide below
xinto all the boxes [ ] relevant to your issue (like that [x])Make sure you are using the latest version: run
youtube-dl --versionand ensure your version is 2016.12.09. If it's not read this FAQ entry and update. Issues with outdated version will be rejected.Before submitting an issue make sure you have:
What is the purpose of your issue?
Description of your issue, suggested solution and other information
When I donwload a file that has already been downloaded with the
--no-mtimeoption, the mtime of the file is not updated.The file is not downloaded again, wich is the correct behaviour, but I think the mtime should be updated (like a
touch).It would be better to have a filesystem state indepedent of the pre-existence of the file. This will make scripting more coherent and reproduceable.
use case exemple
I have a little app that get video link from users to download them. Later, another program play the videos ordered from the last submited. In the current state, if a video has already been downloaded, I have to treat that edge case to make it goes to the top of the list. With the requested change, a simple date ordering from the file will always be the correct order.
corollary
Alternatively if I first download a file with
--no-mtimeoption and then again without it. It also makes sense to update the file date to the server upload date instead of keeping the first download date. This will solve #10038 in a more consistent manner.