On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 14:16, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2003, Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > Actually, a bigger "attitude" issue for me is having a separate
> > rsync-devel and rsync-user lists. I have almost unsubscribed many times
> > because of the numerous newbie user q
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 02:16:42PM +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2003, Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[discussion of cvs branches and rsync successor projects]
> > Actually, a bigger "attitude" issue for me is having a separate
> > rsync-devel and rsync-user lists. I have almos
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 05:44:32PM -0800, Madole, Dave BGI SF wrote:
>
> I agree with this. I am in a situation where I don't install rsync
> myself, I have to depend on sysadmins to do it. They get very nervous
> and insist on installing it as something like "rsync2_5_5" because they are
> afr
On 29 Jan 2003, jw schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is just a trivial documentation change. The word
> "link" is overloaded. It refers to symlinks, hardlinks and
> network links. When looking for references to file links in
> the manpages the network references get in the way.
+1
--
On 30 Jan 2003, Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 07:40, Green, Paul wrote:
> > jw schultz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> >
> > [general discussion of forthcoming patches removed]
> >
> > > All well and good. But the question before this thread is
> > > are t
I agree with this. I am in a situation where I don't install rsync
myself, I have to depend on sysadmins to do it. They get very nervous
and insist on installing it as something like "rsync2_5_5" because they are
afraid
some other users "legacy" rsync invocation is going to break; you can't
bl
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:40:36PM -0500, Green, Paul wrote:
> Having a production branch will remind us that we have a place to put
> stability or security fixes, and will make it easy to do so.
I think I see now how you're viewing this branch -- as something to keep
updated with fixes in paralle
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 07:40, Green, Paul wrote:
> jw schultz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>
> [general discussion of forthcoming patches removed]
>
> > All well and good. But the question before this thread is
> > are the changes big and disruptive enough to make a second
> > branch for the
'jw schultz' wrote:
> I'm concerned about patches getting into the "production"
> branch that don't get forward ported.
Hmm, dangerous.
> This is CVS, we can always extract a tagged version.
And create the branch from there, at a later date, IIRC ?
So, development can continue on HEAD, right no
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:40:36PM -0500, Green, Paul wrote:
> jw schultz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>
> [general discussion of forthcoming patches removed]
>
> > All well and good. But the question before this thread is
> > are the changes big and disruptive enough to make a second
> > b
This is just a trivial documentation change. The word
"link" is overloaded. It refers to symlinks, hardlinks and
network links. When looking for references to file links in
the manpages the network references get in the way.
This patch changes when reasonable to do so the word "link"
to "connec
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 02:34:43PM -0500, Karl Wieman wrote:
> With much hope I upgraded to rsync version 2.5.6 in hopes that it would
> correct the symbolic link bug I have been wrestling with...
>
> No dice. It still insists on dropping the leading slash from a symbolic
> link outside the sourc
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Green, Paul wrote:
> Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>
> >I also get this warning, which is trivial, but it would be nice to
> >clean it up:
> >
> > "cleanup.c", line 36: portability warning: trigraph sequence
> replaced
Great, tha
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 09:24:26AM +0100, Laurent CREPET wrote:
> I've just compiled 2.5.6 release on Tru64 V5.0A (configure detects
> alphaev67-dec-osf5.0, gcc release is a 3.1.1).
>
> rsync fails using rsync:/// syntax.
>
> > lct@goliath(32) [rsync-2.5.6]$ ./rsync rsync://stitch/
> > rsync: get
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:23:11PM -0500, Green, Paul wrote:
> Laurent CREPET [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > I've just compiled 2.5.6 release on Tru64 V5.0A (configure detects
> > alphaev67-dec-osf5.0, gcc release is a 3.1.1).
> >
> > rsync fails using rsync:/// syntax.
> >
> > lct@goliath(3
Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>I also get this warning, which is trivial, but it would be nice to
>clean it up:
>
> "cleanup.c", line 36: portability warning: trigraph sequence
replaced
>
>This is from the () in cleanup.c. To get rid of the
Horst von Brand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> The packaging/lsb/rsync.spec file is broken as shipped: It has a "Sept"
> month (rpmbuild here takes only 3-letter month names), and RH gzips the
> manpages, so the %files list can't find them. I also added doc/README-SGML
> and doc/rsync.sgml to
jw schultz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
[general discussion of forthcoming patches removed]
> All well and good. But the question before this thread is
> are the changes big and disruptive enough to make a second
> branch for the event of a security or other critical bug.
Agreed.
> Person
Laurent CREPET [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> I've just compiled 2.5.6 release on Tru64 V5.0A (configure detects
> alphaev67-dec-osf5.0, gcc release is a 3.1.1).
>
> rsync fails using rsync:/// syntax.
>
> lct@goliath(32) [rsync-2.5.6]$ ./rsync rsync://stitch/
> rsync: getaddrinfo: stitch 873:
With much hope I upgraded to rsync version 2.5.6 in hopes that it would
correct the symbolic link bug I have been wrestling with...
No dice. It still insists on dropping the leading slash from a symbolic
link outside the source tree. Interactively it still works fine, but as
a daemon it's busted.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 05:31:59PM +0100, Marco Broglia wrote:
> I have a problem using option -n (to test if a sync operation will be
> done)
Yeah, it's a known bug that -n doesn't mention everything that rsync
would output if -n wasn't specified. I've also noticed that rsync
sometimes does thin
Dave Dykstra wrote:
I suspect it's also the
reason why the build.samba.org cygwin machine hasn't reported a result
in the last 9 hours.
Nope.. problems with the CPU fan-cooler =(
I'm taking it back out and washing my hands of the cygwin rsync port, I'm fed up.
I'll catch up with Max doscove
I have a problem using option -n (to test if a sync operation will be
done) and I add empty directory in the source tree.
If I make:
# mkdir source/empty
# rsync -n -v -a ... source/ dest
rsync does not notes empty dir, but if I remove -n option it synchronize
correctly also the empty dir.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 10:41:40PM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 18:22, Craig Barratt wrote:
> > > I have several patches that I'm planning to check in soon (I'm waiting
> > > to see if we have any post-release tweaking to and/or branching to do).
> > > This list is off the t
jw schultz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:24:57PM +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> > On 28 Jan 2003, "Green, Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I think splitting the branches will also let us be a little more
> > > experimental in the development branch, at least
Martin Pool [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> On 28 Jan 2003, "Green, Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think splitting the branches will also let us be a little more
> > experimental in the development branch, at least until we get near
> > the next release phase, because we'll always ha
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 18:22, Craig Barratt wrote:
> > I have several patches that I'm planning to check in soon (I'm waiting
> > to see if we have any post-release tweaking to and/or branching to do).
> > This list is off the top of my head, but I think it is complete:
>
> And I have several thing
27 matches
Mail list logo
