On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 02:57:29PM -0500, Daniel Ouellet wrote: > Dave Dykstra wrote: > > JD Paul's patch which I previously referred to will give you what > > you want. > > So, this patch would apply only when the :: is in use correct? That's what I > understand.
Yes. > > ":" syntax uses rsh (or ssh if you use -e ssh) to run another copy of the > > rsync program on the remote side. "::" syntax skips that completely, > > ignores -e, and instead connects to a daemon separately started to listen > > on port 873 on the remote host. In the future, when JD Paul's patch is > > accepted, the expectation will be that if you use "::" and "-e ssh" > > together it will still use ssh to connect but it will run rsync -daemon > > interactively so it can honor your rsyncd.conf. > > > > Does that make it clear? > > > Now I re-read the documents a few more times and I did some more test. I > just got the light I guess! (:> I was running a daemon on my server or > source and it wasn't needed with the : syntax I used! Duh!! (:< > > Here again correct me if I am wrong, but the : as explain in the DOC ( but I > didn't get it the first time, and the second and...) is use when your SSH > remote shell will start a rsync process on the remote server and YOU DO NOT > NEED a --daemon running there, but at the moment, without JD Paul's patch, > the rsyncd.conf file is ignore. Right. > The :: will use the --daemon on the remote server and should accept the > rsyncd.conf correctly with SSH if JD Paul's patch is apply. I think I am > clear on that as well, right? Yes. With JD Paul's patch, the remote side will not be listening on port 873 but it will start up a new instance of rsync --daemon under ssh and honor rsyncd.conf. > At the moment if SSH is in use, regardless if you use : or ::, the > rsync.conf is not use without JD Paul's patch apply, so there is no way to > limit access to part of the file system under SSH other then changing the > right on the user on the remote server? Right. If you use :: now, you are not using SSH. > Many thanks for your help and answer! It put some light for me on this. > > Last part if I may abuse of your generosity so far. In the 2.5.2, there is > the use of malloc.h that wasn't there n the 2.5.1 and will make my compiler > complain and provide me plenty of warning. 2.5.2 added the gcc -Wall option but hasn't yet tried to fix many of the warnings. I expect those to come along some time in the future. > Any patch to use the more resent > stdlib.h instead or am I crazy to ask? rsync.h is already including stdlib.h if it exists, so that must not be the problem. - Dave
