That would be very much appreciated.
Thank You.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:rsync-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wayne Davison
> Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 10:50 PM
> To: Surer Dink
> Cc: rsync@lists.samba.org
> Subject: Re: rsy
On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 07:22:59PM -0500, Surer Dink wrote:
> Is it possible to have this patch committed to the official release?
The patch as it currently exists is not yet good enough for the trunk
(e.g. it makes the code less efficient by introducing a superfluous
stat() call). I will be con
On Sat, 2006-04-01 at 19:22 -0500, Surer Dink wrote:
> Is it possible to have this patch committed to the official release?
I daresay ACLs are at least as commonly used as BSD flags, so if
official rsync adopts flags, could it adopt ACLs (or at least default
ACL observance, without which rsync's b
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 04:51:56PM -0500, Jonathan Call wrote:
> > It refers to a --flags patch that I don't see available anywhere:
> I used the link to the patch in the email you cited to find it. It's
> quite old though, and I saw one bug (namely that the SAME_FLAG value was
> too big to actu
t the --flags option and then running it with the
--flags option seems to be a workaround in that respect.
Jonathan
> -Original Message-
> From: Wayne Davison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 3:08 PM
> To: Jonathan Call
> Cc: rsync@lists.samba.org
> Sub
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 03:59:45PM -0500, Jonathan Call wrote:
> rsync: file flags are not supported on this client.
This means that the source was patched (since that message is not around
without the patch) but that it was not configured with chflags support.
Did you run ./prepare_source after a
(substituting -rlptgoD instead) given that old conversation had debates
that it would even work.
Thanks,
Jonathan
> -Original Message-
> From: Wayne Davison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 5:00 PM
> To: Jonathan Call
> Cc: rsync@lists.samba.org
>
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 04:51:56PM -0500, Jonathan Call wrote:
> It refers to a --flags patch that I don't see available anywhere:
I used the link to the patch in the email you cited to find it. It's
quite old though, and I saw one bug (namely that the SAME_FLAG value was
too big to actually be t
