On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, Wayne Davison wrote: > On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 10:05:59AM -0600, Jon Nelson wrote: > > The important thing is with the 2.6.3 binary everything works fine > > That's to be expected because 2.6.3 only implements protocol 28. The > problem that I believe is occurring is that the destination host is not > supporting the final version of protocol 29 -- if it claims that it is > implementing protocol 29 but it was a based on a CVS snapshot that does > not implement all of the final protocol, it would fail in the way you > described (due to the official protocol 29 transmitting an empty exclude > list, and the server not expecting this info, causing a protocol failure).
> > I've confirmed that the source is in fact 2.6.6. > > Yes, but what is the destination rsync version? That is the important > info that I asked about in my prior email. I would also like to know if > it is a version that was distributed by an OS vendor (e.g. if it was > packaged in a SUSE Linux distribution) or if it is a custom installation > that an individual installed and just forgot to upgrade to a non-CVS > version. The binaries on both machines are identical. I only need to change the destination binary to 2.6.3 for things to work - the source binary can stay at 2.6.6 without issue. I downloaded the source for 2.6.6 from the rsync website and diffed it against the patched source from the SUSE srpm - the only differences are acl and srp things and I am quite sure they aren't the problem. If it makes you feel better I'll rebuild the rpm without the patches (I'm quite familiar with the process) and try that although I'm positive that they aren't a problem. -- Jon Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
