Re: (fwd from uke@jeremy.org) thanks and patch

2002-04-07 Thread Martin Pool
On 21 Mar 2002, Dave Dykstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I guess that makes sense; I can't think of another easy to do what you want > > > to do. Pretty obscure case though. > > > > Obscure now, but I expect not forever. > > > > If you consider it desirable for rsync to be able to do this

Re: (fwd from uke@jeremy.org) thanks and patch

2002-03-21 Thread Dave Dykstra
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 09:42:21AM -0800, jeremy bornstein wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 11:24:07AM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote: > > Oh, I see, you want to use your new --date-only option on the first pass > > when you're determining which files to transfer, before you encrypt them. > > Yes! >

Re: (fwd from uke@jeremy.org) thanks and patch

2002-03-21 Thread jeremy bornstein
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 11:24:07AM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote: > Oh, I see, you want to use your new --date-only option on the first pass > when you're determining which files to transfer, before you encrypt them. Yes! > I guess that makes sense; I can't think of another easy to do what you want

Re: (fwd from uke@jeremy.org) thanks and patch

2002-03-21 Thread Dave Dykstra
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 08:58:21AM -0800, jeremy bornstein wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 08:39:44AM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote: > > You probably ought to use the --whole-file option of rsync then because > > the rolling checksums are only going to slow you down. > > Ah, thanks! > > > > > Oh,

Re: (fwd from uke@jeremy.org) thanks and patch

2002-03-21 Thread jeremy bornstein
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 08:39:44AM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote: > You probably ought to use the --whole-file option of rsync then because > the rolling checksums are only going to slow you down. Ah, thanks! > > Oh, do you mean you fiddle the mtimes of the source files to be the same > > as those

Re: (fwd from uke@jeremy.org) thanks and patch

2002-03-21 Thread Dave Dykstra
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 03:19:37PM -0800, jeremy bornstein wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 10:07:14AM +1100, Martin Pool wrote: > > It sounds like you're using asymmetric encryption. So I suppose every > > time you encrypt the file, gpg will generate a new session key, so an > > identical cleart

Re: (fwd from uke@jeremy.org) thanks and patch

2002-03-20 Thread Martin Pool
On 20 Mar 2002, jeremy bornstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dave Dykstra wrote: > > Wouldn't encrypting the file with gpg change the timestamp as well as the > > size, so rsync would still copy the file? > > It certainly does--which is why I reset it afterwards. > > Although the backup script

Re: (fwd from uke@jeremy.org) thanks and patch

2002-03-20 Thread jeremy bornstein
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 10:07:14AM +1100, Martin Pool wrote: > It sounds like you're using asymmetric encryption. So I suppose every > time you encrypt the file, gpg will generate a new session key, so an > identical cleartext file will generate a completely different > cyphertext file every time

Re: (fwd from uke@jeremy.org) thanks and patch

2002-03-20 Thread Martin Pool
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 08:21:36AM -0800, jeremy bornstein wrote: > > > The encryption program I'm using, gpg, includes a small bit of header > > > information with the encrypted file, thus changing the size. Gpg is a > > > public key encryption program which at least includes the numeric key

Re: (fwd from uke@jeremy.org) thanks and patch

2002-03-20 Thread jeremy bornstein
Dave Dykstra wrote: > Wouldn't encrypting the file with gpg change the timestamp as well as the > size, so rsync would still copy the file? It certainly does--which is why I reset it afterwards. Although the backup script I use is pretty simple, having this patch to rsync does not obviate it.

Re: (fwd from uke@jeremy.org) thanks and patch

2002-03-20 Thread Dave Dykstra
Wouldn't encrypting the file with gpg change the timestamp as well as the size, so rsync would still copy the file? - Dave Dykstra On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 08:21:36AM -0800, jeremy bornstein wrote: > Martin, > > The encryption program I'm using, gpg, includes a small bit of header > information

Re: (fwd from uke@jeremy.org) thanks and patch

2002-03-19 Thread Mark Eichin
Wouldn't using detached signatures make more sense for this application? -- To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Re: (fwd from uke@jeremy.org) thanks and patch

2002-03-19 Thread jeremy bornstein
Martin, The encryption program I'm using, gpg, includes a small bit of header information with the encrypted file, thus changing the size. Gpg is a public key encryption program which at least includes the numeric key ID of the recipient's key. Since folks can have many keys, this is useful inf

(fwd from uke@jeremy.org) thanks and patch

2002-03-19 Thread Martin Pool
Jeremy, I'm glad you like rsync. Why does your encryption program not produce a file of the same size every time it is run on the same input? I can see what the patch does, but I'm having a bit of trouble understanding whether it would be generally useful. -- Martin --- Begin Message ---