You misread my comments. It's only the 128-bit hash that depends on
0.8.0. The 0.7 version works fine with rsync, giving it the 64-bit and
32-bit hashes.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to rsync in Ubuntu.
https:/
That said, of course, 0.8.0 is the better choice for the most possible
features (if it is available).
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to rsync in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1934992
Title:
rsync 3.2
Hi Wayne! Thanks for commenting.
> It's only the 128-bit hash that depends on 0.8.0.
> The 0.7 version works fine with rsync, giving it
> the 64-bit and 32-bit hashes.
Yes. Except it seems that if you switch the libxxhash0 from 0.8 to 0.7,
you get different behaviour.
rsync doesn't check what ki
Hello Walter,
Thanks for filling the bug and helping in making the Ubuntu server
better.
However, if I get everything right, I think you're mistaken about how it
works and I am sorry but what you're trying to do is not correct! You
cannot just decide to take one of the package from another releas
How about this case:
- I make a hypothetical package that depends on libxxhash < 0.8 because
I want the "broken/old" xxh128 support;
- I have libxxhash 0.7.3 (that came with Focal);
- I have rsync 3.1.x (that came with Focal);
- Now I release-upgrade my system from Focal to Groovy;
- I get all
Sorry, the use cases you describe are not supported by Ubuntu.
You're welcome to hack your system as you wish, but that doesn't mean
that we will necessarily make changes in Ubuntu to accommodate that. We
do try to be helpful, of course. And in this case I agree that it is a
bug that rsync doesn't
6 matches
Mail list logo
