On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 10:25:14AM +0200, Paul Slootman wrote:
> I wouldn't have expected 2.6.4 to refuse to talk to even a 2.6.2 in
> this way...
It shouldn't, and (interestingly) it wouldn't have if --delete had been
specified (apparently I did all my backward-compatibility testing using
--delete).
So, it turns out to be a bug in the filter-compatibility code when we're
a client sender and we're not actually sending the filter list to the
receiver (which we don't in older protocols when we're the sender and
--delete wasn't specified), but instead just verifying that it doesn't
contain any directives that were too new to work with the remote rsync.
Attached is the fix.
..wayne..
--- exclude.c 7 Apr 2005 18:06:06 -0000 1.115
+++ exclude.c 26 Apr 2005 15:18:45 -0000
@@ -1108,7 +1108,7 @@ static void send_rules(int f_out, struct
&& !(ent->match_flags & MATCHFLG_MERGE_FILE)) {
int f = am_sender || protocol_version < 29 ? f_out : -1;
send_rules(f, &cvs_filter_list);
- if (f >= 0)
+ if (f >= 0 || f_out < 0)
continue;
}
p = get_rule_prefix(ent->match_flags, ent->pattern, 1, &plen);
--
To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
