https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5458
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #1
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5458
Summary: -a -X throws error when processing fifo, even if --no-D
is specified
Product: rsync
Version: 3.0.1
Platform: x86
OS/Version: Mac OS X
Status: NEW
S
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5457
Summary: Add a client-side --munge-symlinks option
Product: rsync
Version: 3.0.3
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
On Sat, 2008-05-10 at 15:22 -0700, Carl E. Thompson wrote:
> "--link-dest" introduces other security problems itself which I have
> already discussed at length.
I guess you're referring to item 2 in your original description of bug
5448? Item 2a would be solved by the daemon link-dest parameter t
Original Message
Subject: Re: Should no-tweak mode become the default?
From: Paul Slootman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: rsync@lists.samba.org
Date: 05/10/2008 12:04 PM
> ...
> My two cents...
> A backup system should at the least ensure that the last version is
> correct. If it has
On Sat, 2008-05-10 at 21:04 +0200, Paul Slootman wrote:
> A backup system should at the least ensure that the last version is
> correct. If it has to tweak the attributes to do that, it should.
No one is considering leaving the last version incorrect. The
"no-tweak" mode replaces the destination
On Sat, 2008-05-10 at 10:13 -0700, Carl E. Thompson wrote:
> Truly, though,
> it's not really a problem in rsync but in the backup systems that made
> the assumption that rsync's default behavior is appropriate for the job
> they are giving it.
My view exactly.
> If the default won't be changed t
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5455
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
On Sat 10 May 2008, Carl E. Thompson wrote:
>
> The reason I wanted the default changed is because it would
> automatically fix current backup systems that are vulnerable to this
> problem without all the vulnerable folks out there having to update all
> of their software and settings (just the rs
Original Message
Subject: Re: Should no-tweak mode become the default?
From: Wayne Davison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Matt McCutchen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 05/09/2008 11:25 PM
> On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 09:34:07PM -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
>> This is to continue my discussion
On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 06:27:27PM -0700, Patrick Nolan wrote:
> I thought the -q option and the redirection to /dev/null would
> keep it quiet under normal circumstances. Apparently not.
It should. You shouldn't even require -q since you're not using -v.
I tried out your setup, and didn't get a
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5455
--- Comment #2 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 10:31 CST ---
One other question: have you modified the meaning of -E (using a popt alias)?
Because -E in 3.0.2 doesn't mean what it means in an Apple-modified rsync (a
stock rsync uses
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5455
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from [EM
On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 08:59:41AM -0700, arguellodw wrote:
> rsync error: timeout in data send/receive (code 30) at
> /home/lapo/packaging/tmp/rsync-2.6.3/io.c(153)
You are reaching your idle-time timeout. Either make it larger (e.g.
--timeout=360) or upgrade to a newer rsync version that has su
On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 09:06:02AM -0400, Robert DuToit wrote:
> I havn't compiled 3.0.3 pre1 yet but have been seeing considerable longer
> backup times on OSX 5.2, using 3.0.2 over 3.0.1.
There is nothing in the changes for 3.0.2 would affect rsync's speed.
Perhaps the patches you applied diffe
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 08:15:58AM +0200, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) wrote:
> /usr/include/compat.h:22:2: warning: #warning "This header is obsolete, use
> ap_compat.h instead"
> /tmp/ccHr5d51.s: Assembler messages:
> /tmp/ccHr5d51.s:1409: Error: symbol `fstatat64' is already defined [...]
You might
16 matches
Mail list logo
