Re: Netware modify bit changed

2001-12-06 Thread Juan J. López
Dave: Added the "--modify-window" option to the command line.works fine Thanks to all!! On 6 Dec 2001 at 8:37, Dave Dykstra wrote: Date sent: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 08:37:02 -0600 From: Dave Dykstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Juan J. Lóp

protocol error?

2001-12-06 Thread mho
I recently upgraded one of my servers to 2.5.0. Since then, I've been getting error messages like following between 2.5.0 and 2.4.6 servers. bit length overflow code 3 bits 7->6 code 10 bits 5->6 Does this error come from using different protocol version? Regards, Hor

Re: bug in permissions on symlinks

2001-12-06 Thread Cameron Simpson
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 09:06:10AM -0600, Dave Dykstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 12:58:31AM +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote: | > Not so. The sunos4 boxen don't have lchown() | | You're right. However, the chown man page says it doesn't follow symlinks: | | If the fi

Stefan Stoerig/IDP/Muenchen/MAN_Nutzfahrzeuge istaußer Haus.

2001-12-06 Thread Stefan_Stoerig
Ich werde ab 06.12.2001 nicht im Büro sein. Ich kehre zurück am 10.12.2001. Wenn Sie Fragen zu unserem Dokumentenserver haben, so schreiben Sie bitte eine Email an [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Störig

Cosmetic code cleanup?

2001-12-06 Thread Jos Backus
Here's a list of cosmetic changes I'd be willing to make to the code in order to make it more consistent, which stylisticly it currently is not. - separate function definitions by 2 newlines - put spaces after commas in arg lists - put spaces around assignments - remove trailing spaces - change s

Re: rsync-2.5.1pre1 with -F option

2001-12-06 Thread Jos Backus
Here's a better patch; rsync should now no longer dump core if called with insufficient arguments. write_batch_argvs_file() is still ugly though, not sure how to clean this up. Index: batch.c === RCS file: /cvsroot/rsync/batch.c,v re

Re: move rsync development tree to BitKeeper?

2001-12-06 Thread Jos Backus
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 05:36:55PM -0500, Mark Eichin wrote: > GNU Subversions is apparently now self-hosting (and is actually free, > instead of arguably free :-) If you're looking at perforce or > bitkeeper, though, also look at Accurev 3.0 (which is > free-for-free-software, in java, *fast* and

Re: move rsync development tree to BitKeeper?

2001-12-06 Thread Mark Eichin
GNU Subversions is apparently now self-hosting (and is actually free, instead of arguably free :-) If you're looking at perforce or bitkeeper, though, also look at Accurev 3.0 (which is free-for-free-software, in java, *fast* and has a better consistency model...)

Problem: rsync hangs

2001-12-06 Thread Ed Santiago
Greetings, We've been experiencing intermittent timeout errors with rsync 2.4.x, but I've never been able to set up a small enough test case, nor track down the problem to its root cause[1]. Rsync 2.5.0 still has problems, but in a perverted way it's better: it's reproducible more quickly (1 hou

unexplained error code when updating large (2G+) file

2001-12-06 Thread Chuck Fisher
When trying to transfer a large file to another system in update mode (actually checking new build of 2.5.0 on HPUX 11.11, the file already exists but I was checking to see that rsync recognized that), I get: rsync error: unexplained error (code 130) at main.c(537) Any suggestions as to what and

RE: move rsync development tree to BitKeeper?

2001-12-06 Thread Keating, Tim
If you're serious about not using CVS (and I've used it, I understand why you might be :), may I suggest Perforce? It's a commercial product but it is free for use on open-source projects. The only complication would be you'd need to find a server to host it. I can say definitively that it ROCKS.

Re: Netware modify bit changed

2001-12-06 Thread tim . conway
I think that what Juan means is that when you rsync from one system where the archive bit is unset, to another place, these files, which were archive=0 on their source, are new creations on the target system, and have the archive bit set. Rsync has no provision to preserve these attributes, a

Re: bug in permissions on symlinks

2001-12-06 Thread Dave Dykstra
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 12:58:31AM +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote: ... > Not so. The sunos4 boxen don't have lchown() You're right. However, the chown man page says it doesn't follow symlinks: If the final component of path is a symbolic link, the own- ership and group of the symbol

Re: Netware modify bit changed

2001-12-06 Thread Dave Dykstra
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 12:52:31AM -0300, Juan J. López wrote: > On 5 Dec 2001 at 15:02, Martin Pool wrote: > > Date sent:Wed, 5 Dec 2001 15:02:34 +1100 > From: Martin Pool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Juan J. L?pez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Copies to:

Re: bug in permissions on symlinks

2001-12-06 Thread Cameron Simpson
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 12:42:19PM -0600, Dave Dykstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 11:52:08PM +1100, Martin Pool wrote: | > I see rsync has this in rsync.h | > #ifndef HAVE_LCHOWN | > #define lchown chown | > #endif Ick! | > I'm not at all sure the way we're callin