On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:20:48 -0700
jw schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 03:57:37PM -0400, Jason M. Felice wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 05:18:00PM +0100, Andy Henson wrote:
> > > I propose a new option:
> > > --comp-file=
> > >
> > > allowing:
> > > rsync -vvtPB --
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 12:03:28PM +1000, Christopher Vance wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 06:54:02PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> >It isn't yet. The debian version of gzip might have the
> >patch applied because it is an issue for the debian mirror
> >sites but i don't know. I believe the gzip d
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 06:54:02PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
It isn't yet. The debian version of gzip might have the
patch applied because it is an issue for the debian mirror
sites but i don't know. I believe the gzip developers are
considering applying the patch.
Oh. That makes it mostly not-ye
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 11:31:36AM +1000, Christopher Vance wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 01:20:48PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> >>It will never help with rsync-2.5.6.tar.gz vs. rsync-2.5.5.tar.gz
> >>anyway, since any small change early in the stream will cause the entire
> >>file to be encoded
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 01:20:48PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
It will never help with rsync-2.5.6.tar.gz vs. rsync-2.5.5.tar.gz
anyway, since any small change early in the stream will cause the entire
file to be encoded differently (side affect of how compression
algorithms work).
See the rsyncable p
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 02:30:32PM -0700, Ben Escoto wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:43:35 -0400
> "Jason M. Felice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > dirvish looks interesting. One of the requirements that I now realize I
> > didn't write into the proposal was the ability to store only a single
> >
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:43:35 -0400
"Jason M. Felice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> dirvish looks interesting. One of the requirements that I now realize I
> didn't write into the proposal was the ability to store only a single
> copy of duplicate files... duplicate as determined by file contents, n
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 03:57:37PM -0400, Jason M. Felice wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 05:18:00PM +0100, Andy Henson wrote:
> > I propose a new option:
> > --comp-file=
> >
> > allowing:
> > rsync -vvtPB --comp-file=$BASE remote.host:$NEW .
> >
>
> Specifying this for each file would be murd
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 03:43:35PM -0400, Jason M. Felice wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:44:52AM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> > Try dirvish or one of the other backup systems already out
> > there.
>
> dirvish looks interesting. One of the requirements that I now realize I
> didn't write into
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 05:18:00PM +0100, Andy Henson wrote:
> I propose a new option:
> --comp-file=
>
> allowing:
> rsync -vvtPB --comp-file=$BASE remote.host:$NEW .
>
Specifying this for each file would be murder for my purposes, but I
like the concept. I think there needs to be some sort of
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:44:52AM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> Try dirvish or one of the other backup systems already out
> there.
dirvish looks interesting. One of the requirements that I now realize I
didn't write into the proposal was the ability to store only a single
copy of duplicate files..
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:57:36AM -0400, Jason M. Felice wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Below is a link to a proposal I'm writing for two clients of ours who want an
> Internet-based backup solution. I propose eleven "objectives" in it,
> most of which are modifications to rsync. I'd like to contribute
> the
I agree version support should be added to rsync, indeed I was about to
propose an extension, but I start from a very different point of view.
We already use versioned files. For example, the rsync download is called
rsync-2.5.6.tar.gz and the previous one is rsync-2.5.5.tar.gz.
I agree some s
13 matches
Mail list logo
