On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 10:51:08AM -0800, Wayne Davison wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 10:03:28AM -0800, jw schultz wrote:
>
> > The one thing i really would have liked to have seen in a version bump
> > would have been changing the default remote shell to ssh instead of
> > rsh/remsh.
>
> I can see this being both a good thing (since I think it is a better
> default for new users) and a painful thing (for people who still use
> rsh). I'd be in favor of making this change, but I'm not sure if we
> should try to slip it into 2.6.0 or not; on the one hand it is a very
> simple change to make, but on the other it has a big impact on how rsync
> works. I suppose we should just leave it for later.
Code-wise it is almost trivial but user impact for those
that depend on the default being rsh or remsh is potentially
non-trivial. I think most that need rsh instead of ssh
would be fine just setting RSYNC_RSH but the magic with
[non]blocking io based on
if ((blocking_io == -1) && (strcmp(cmd, RSYNC_RSH) == 0))
blocking_io = 1;
might means some might have to add the --blocking-io option
so they might as well use "-e rsh --blocking-io". Of
course that bit of logic also means that "configure
--with-rsh=ssh" would get the logic wrong too so it is in a
sense broken already. I suppose we could change that to
if ((blocking_io == -1)
&& (strcmp(cmd, 'rsh') == 0) || (strcmp(cmd, 'remsh') == 0))
blocking_io = 1;
Which comes close to the intent of the original though it
doesn't deal with someone doing "configure
--with-rsh=/usr/local/bin/rsh"
It would be worthwhile to add a note in INSTALL to advise
people of the --with-rsh configure option.
Any thoughts, particularly with regard to putting this in
before 2.6.0?
--
________________________________________________________________
J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies
email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remember Cernan and Schmitt
--
To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
