Hi Wayne, The patch doesn't just drop in as there's additional code to handle "verbose" mode in the 2.6.4 code which is not in the most recent "nightly" tarball. It looks trival to insert the patch manually. Should this be OK or is the most recent "bleeding edge" more stable? I'm very concerned with stability. I'm using rsync to backup production systems for my employer and would rather use the most stable code which supports the features I need. I was using 2.5.7 (with Redhat and Progeny Transition Services backported patches) for a year or more without problems, however I recently noticed that there were some irregularities with the handling of hard links and --link-dest relating to a few glibc-common files. After working on this for a couple of hours and not getting anywhere, I decided to try upgrading to 2.6.4 and that's when I discovered the problem I reported to the list. I've dropped back to 2.5.7 for the time being, but I'll be happy to upgrade to 2.6.4 with the patch installed manually if it's the right thing to do. Can you advise?
Thanks, Rafe Quoting Wayne Davison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 02:01:38PM -0500, Raphael Jaffey wrote: > > This can be easily reproduced locally with the following example: > > Thanks for the test case -- it makes things really easy to fix. > Attached is a patch that fixes this bug. It's for the CVS version > but it should apply to 2.6.4 as well. However, if you're going to > rebuild, you might as well snag the latest "nightly" tar file from > the rsync web page and apply the patch to that. > > Thanks! > > ..wayne.. > -- To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
