On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 04:52:51PM -0400, Paul Haas wrote:
> I can think of 4 usefull modes:
> 1The default, don't try to chown().
> 2 --ownerIf rsync thinks it is root, then try to chown()
> 3 --owner-whiningAlways try to chown() and whine if it doesn't work.
>
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, Wayne Davison wrote:
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 10:30:44AM +0200, Essyug wrote:
Rsync seems to work as if I had used the --numeric-ids
If rsync doesn't find a username match, it will fall-back to using the
ID directly, so I would assume that the problem is that the ID names on
you
Ihre Mail (Betreff: Returned mail: see transcript for details )
beinhaltet einen Virus und wurde deshalb geblockt!
Eine Nachricht über den Eingang der Mail wurde an den Empfänger geschickt.
--
To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http
On Sep 08, Wayne Davison wrote:
| When I get around to working on a
| replacement rsync protocol once again this will finally be taken care
| of.
i also remember reading about Martin Pool talking about a
replacement a while back. Realistically, when do you see su
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 10:30:44AM +0200, Essyug wrote:
> Rsync seems to work as if I had used the --numeric-ids
If rsync doesn't find a username match, it will fall-back to using the
ID directly, so I would assume that the problem is that the ID names on
your cygwin system aren't matching the ID
Stefaan Lhermitte wrote:
Indeed, I want to:
* to start rsync session A->C
* cannot establish ssh session A->C (firewall)
* but can establish ssh session A->B and B->C
I think I understand the ssh hop. If I'm correct. I make a script file
ssh-b that I subsequently invoke in the rsync command (./ssh
Indeed, I want to:
* to start rsync session A->C
* cannot establish ssh session A->C (firewall)
* but can establish ssh session A->B and B->C
I think I understand the ssh hop. If I'm correct. I make a script file
ssh-b that I subsequently invoke in the rsync command (./ssh-b).
Unfortunately I sti
On Wed 08 Sep 2004, Stefaan Lhermitte wrote:
> I tried to connect the tunnel with another port number. When I use port
> number 22 instead of 873 I can telnet to C from B.
> When I telnet I get "SSH-1.99-OpenSSH_3.9p1."
Yes, because you are connecting via the tunnel to the ssh server on C
> Su
Stefaan Lhermitte wrote:
I tried to connect the tunnel with another port number. When I use
port number 22 instead of 873 I can telnet to C from B.
When I telnet I get "SSH-1.99-OpenSSH_3.9p1."
Subsequently I ran: ssh -v -L 22:C-computer:22 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When I run now the rsync command:
r
I tried to connect the tunnel with another port number. When I use port
number 22 instead of 873 I can telnet to C from B.
When I telnet I get "SSH-1.99-OpenSSH_3.9p1."
Subsequently I ran: ssh -v -L 22:C-computer:22 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When I run now the rsync command:
rsync -v /cygdrive/d/fol
My test directory on W2k and all its content are owned by
DOMAIN\testuser, which is a domain administrator.
Rsync only tries to change file ownership if it thinks that it is
running as root, and that test is currently a simple comparison of the
effective UID against 0. You might try outputting t
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 09:42:32AM +0200, Radio Gong 2000 GmbH & Co. KG [Technik]
wrote:
> I want to put these two commands in just one command:
>
> ssh -i ~/.ssh/id_dsa -C -l sascha -L 873:rsync-server:873 bridge-server
> rsync -auz rsync://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/share /local-path
This was covered a
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 10:37:48PM +0200, Stefan Hoelldampf wrote:
> Damn, the problem is rsync-2.5.5 as receiver
OK, that fails for me too. It was a rather simple mistake caused by
2.6.3pre1 not sending --delete if it thought that --delete-after was
going to imply that option. In the case of se
Hi there,
I want to put these two commands in just one command:
ssh -i ~/.ssh/id_dsa -C -l sascha -L 873:rsync-server:873 bridge-server
rsync -auz rsync://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/share /local-path
How can I do this. With Option --rsh (-e) rsync wants to execute the command
on the remote machine and n
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 07:15:23AM +, Robert Sander wrote:
> I would also vote for such a feature, building the filelist databases
> in parallel.
The whole scan-first-then-send idiom needs to be replaced with an
incremental algorithm (which was the subject of the rZync protocol
test code I wro
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 20:49:21 + (UTC),
Eberhard Moenkeberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, my question (indeed more, a wish): wouldn't it be possible to start
> bulding both databases in parallel, or shortly after each other?
I would also vote for such a feature, building the filelist database
16 matches
Mail list logo
