Re: need help with an rsync patch

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chown itself is not insecure. The indiscriminate chowning of all files creates security issues. You can use --fake-super on push backups. In fact that is what - --fake-super is DESIGNED FOR. You just have to make sure that - --fake-super is running

Re: need help with an rsync patch

On Thursday 29 August 2013 11:46 PM, Wayne Davison wrote: On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Sherin A > wrote: Hope they will report it as a vulnerability , because this POC has been exploited successfully and it is affected by all software that use rsync

Re: need help with an rsync patch

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Sherin A wrote: > Hope they will report it as a vulnerability , because this POC has been > exploited successfully and it is affected by all software that use rsync > as a backup and restore tool. This is totally false. The vulnerability is your insecure u

Re: need help with an rsync patch

On Wednesday 28 August 2013 08:36 AM, Kevin Korb wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Only when you choose to force a completely unnecessary chown between the backup and restore process. On 08/27/13 23:03, Sherin A wrote: On Wednesday 28 August 2013 04:14 AM, Kevin Korb wrote:

Re: need help with an rsync patch

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Only when you choose to force a completely unnecessary chown between the backup and restore process. On 08/27/13 23:03, Sherin A wrote: > On Wednesday 28 August 2013 04:14 AM, Kevin Korb wrote: My opinion > on backups is pretty simplistic. If a resto

Re: need help with an rsync patch

On Wednesday 28 August 2013 04:14 AM, Kevin Korb wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 My opinion on backups is pretty simplistic. If a restore of my backup doesn't bring me back to what I had when I backed up then I don't have a backup. If I have to restore something and the re

Re: need help with an rsync patch

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 My opinion on backups is pretty simplistic. If a restore of my backup doesn't bring me back to what I had when I backed up then I don't have a backup. If I have to restore something and the relationship between files that were hard linked in the past

Re: need help with an rsync patch

> The solution is not to refuse to backup any file that is a hard link. > There are legitimate reasons to have hard links and ignoring them > means you aren't backing up everything. I agree that preserving hard links may be important in some situation. There are certainly legitimate reasons to p

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 It can push or pull. The important part is that it runs as root on one end and with --fake-super on the other end. On 08/17/13 00:07, Sherin A wrote: > On Thursday 15 August 2013 01:25 AM, Kevin Korb wrote: It works if > you use --fake-super on the s

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On Thursday 15 August 2013 01:25 AM, Kevin Korb wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 It works if you use --fake-super on the side that isn't super. That is the only side that needs it: asylum# id kmk uid=12313(kmk) gid=100(users) groups=100(users),10(wheel),16(cron),35(games) a

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 You are putting the --fake-super on the wrong side of the connection. It must be on the side of the connection where rsync is not running as root. That is why in my example I used - --rsync-path='/usr/bin/rsync --fake-super'. That tells it to run wi

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

Hello Kevin, I tested this with rsync version 3.0.9 , but this is not working . Even if we use fake-super or what ever option , these files will be copied into the remote ssh account under that users ownership. root@cptest [~]# ll -d /home/dom2inho drwx--x--x 11 dom2inho dom2inho 4096 A

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 It works if you use --fake-super on the side that isn't super. That is the only side that needs it: asylum# id kmk uid=12313(kmk) gid=100(users) groups=100(users),10(wheel),16(cron),35(games) asylum# ls -l ~kmk/testfile - -rw-r- 1 kmk users 0 Aug

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On Wednesday 14 August 2013 11:04 PM, Kevin Korb wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The point of --fake-super is that when you restore the file with - --fake-super it will restore with the original ownership. Of course that means that the restore has to be run with super

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The point of --fake-super is that when you restore the file with - --fake-super it will restore with the original ownership. Of course that means that the restore has to be run with super privs on the target and --fake-super on the source. On 08/14/1

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On Wednesday 14 August 2013 10:25 PM, Kevin Korb wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > As has been pointed out to you your problem is not hard links. Your > problem is the indiscriminate use of a root operation (a chown) during > the restoration process. > > You should be so

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As has been pointed out to you your problem is not hard links. Your problem is the indiscriminate use of a root operation (a chown) during the restoration process. You should be solving this by either: A) backing up and restoring the original owner o

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On Wednesday 14 August 2013 08:29 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote: On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 04:09:46PM +0530, Sherin A wrote: On Tuesday 13 August 2013 10:24 PM, Justin T Pryzby wrote: PS : if any one interested in making a patch with an additional option for rsync for excluding hardlinks with -links

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On Tuesday 13 August 2013 10:24 PM, Justin T Pryzby wrote: On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:10:04PM +0530, Sherin A wrote: I am doing rsync from root@10.0.0.10/home/foo to storageuser@10.0.0.20/home/storageuser/dailybackup/foo over ssh (no role for -H) Why not rsync from root to root? Or use the

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Sherin A wrote: > I am doing rsync from root@10.0.0.10/home/foo to > storageuser@10.0.0.20/home/**storageuser/dailybackup/foo > over ssh (no role for -H) , so the storage files must be under the

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:10:04PM +0530, Sherin A wrote: > I am doing rsync from root@10.0.0.10/home/foo to > storageuser@10.0.0.20/home/storageuser/dailybackup/foo over ssh (no > role for -H) Why not rsync from root to root? Or use the rsync protocol (not over ssh). Note that you can use -H

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On Tuesday 13 August 2013 09:49 PM, Justin T Pryzby wrote: On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 09:43:06PM +0530, Sherin A wrote: If linux user foo , with home /home/foo , what ownership we need to give the files under his home folder , it must be "foo" and not root. Why? The user created the hardlink

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On 13.08.2013 21:04, Sherin A wrote: > On Tuesday 13 August 2013 08:56 PM, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > >On 13.08.2013 20:44, Sherin A wrote: > >>On Tuesday 13 August 2013 05:50 PM, Paul Slootman wrote: > >>>On Tue 13 Aug 2013, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > BUT there is no direct vulnera

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 09:43:06PM +0530, Sherin A wrote: > If linux user foo , with home /home/foo , what ownership we need > to give the files under his home folder , it must be "foo" and not > root. Why? The user created the hardlink themselves, and it had root ownership, why should the ba

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On Tuesday 13 August 2013 09:07 PM, Justin T Pryzby wrote: On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 08:44:08PM +0530, Sherin A wrote: On Tuesday 13 August 2013 05:50 PM, Paul Slootman wrote: On Tue 13 Aug 2013, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: BUT there is no direct vulnerability in that, only processes after th

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 08:44:08PM +0530, Sherin A wrote: > On Tuesday 13 August 2013 05:50 PM, Paul Slootman wrote: > >On Tue 13 Aug 2013, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > >>BUT there is no direct vulnerability in that, only processes after that > >>(like backup/rsync) can make a vulnerability out

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On Tuesday 13 August 2013 08:56 PM, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: On 13.08.2013 20:44, Sherin A wrote: On Tuesday 13 August 2013 05:50 PM, Paul Slootman wrote: On Tue 13 Aug 2013, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: BUT there is no direct vulnerability in that, only processes after that (like back

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On 13.08.2013 20:44, Sherin A wrote: > On Tuesday 13 August 2013 05:50 PM, Paul Slootman wrote: > >On Tue 13 Aug 2013, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > >>BUT there is no direct vulnerability in that, only processes after that > >>(like backup/rsync) can make a vulnerability out of it. > >... which

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On Tuesday 13 August 2013 07:51 PM, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: On 13.08.2013 15:51, Paul Slootman wrote: On Tue 13 Aug 2013, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: I read your sentence differently: If he can make a HARD link to the shadow file, then he can already read it - and worse. My underst

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On Tuesday 13 August 2013 05:50 PM, Paul Slootman wrote: On Tue 13 Aug 2013, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: BUT there is no direct vulnerability in that, only processes after that (like backup/rsync) can make a vulnerability out of it. ... which is what I already wrote. Paul So the solutions

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On 13.08.2013 15:51, Paul Slootman wrote: > On Tue 13 Aug 2013, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > > > > I read your sentence differently: > > > > > If he can make a HARD link to the shadow file, then he can already > > > read it - and worse. > > > > My understanding of your sentence says: > > Th

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On Tue 13 Aug 2013, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > > I read your sentence differently: > > > If he can make a HARD link to the shadow file, then he can already > > read it - and worse. > > My understanding of your sentence says: > The ability to hardlink, means that anyone can read any file t

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On 13.08.2013 14:20, Paul Slootman wrote: > On Tue 13 Aug 2013, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > > > > BUT there is no direct vulnerability in that, only processes after that > > (like backup/rsync) can make a vulnerability out of it. > > ... which is what I already wrote. I read your sentence

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On 13.08.2013 14:18, Paul Slootman wrote: > On Tue 13 Aug 2013, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > > > > > > > Hardlinking a file doesn't change it's owner/group/permission > > > > (All Hardlinks have the same user/group/permissions). > > > > > > I never said that. > > > > You implied that by you

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On Tue 13 Aug 2013, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > > BUT there is no direct vulnerability in that, only processes after that > (like backup/rsync) can make a vulnerability out of it. ... which is what I already wrote. Paul -- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the maili

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On Tue 13 Aug 2013, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > > > > > Hardlinking a file doesn't change it's owner/group/permission > > > (All Hardlinks have the same user/group/permissions). > > > > I never said that. > > You implied that by your assertion that you suddenly can read a file > after har

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On 13.08.2013 12:29, Paul Slootman wrote: > On Tue 13 Aug 2013, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > > On 13.08.2013 09:52, Paul Slootman wrote: > > My mistake for assuming that people run current linux kernels... > > /proc/sys/fs/protected_hardlinks (since Linux 3.6) > When the value in t

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On 13.08.2013 13:17, Paul Slootman wrote: > On Tue 13 Aug 2013, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > > > That aside that's not what i meant. > > That's the problem with one-word answers, people have to guess what you > mean. > > > > Hardlinking a file doesn't change it's owner/group/permission > >

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On Tue 13 Aug 2013, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > That aside that's not what i meant. That's the problem with one-word answers, people have to guess what you mean. > Hardlinking a file doesn't change it's owner/group/permission > (All Hardlinks have the same user/group/permissions). I neve

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On 13.08.2013 12:29, Paul Slootman wrote: > On Tue 13 Aug 2013, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > > On 13.08.2013 09:52, Paul Slootman wrote: > > > On Tue 13 Aug 2013, Sherin A wrote: > > > > > > > But if a user create a > > > > hard link to /etc/shadow from his home dir , and he request a restore

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On Tue 13 Aug 2013, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > On 13.08.2013 09:52, Paul Slootman wrote: > > On Tue 13 Aug 2013, Sherin A wrote: > > > > > But if a user create a > > > hard link to /etc/shadow from his home dir , and he request a restore , > > > then he can read the shadow files and decrypt

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On 13.08.2013 09:52, Paul Slootman wrote: > On Tue 13 Aug 2013, Sherin A wrote: > > > But if a user create a > > hard link to /etc/shadow from his home dir , and he request a restore , > > then he can read the shadow files and decrypt it . > > If he can make a HARD link to the shadow file, then

Re: need help with an rsync patch

Hello Joe, Thanks for your reply . But think about the real world users. There is not always necessary the /home will be in separate disk partition or /tmp , /var/tmp , /usr/tmp. Think about an openvz vps or disk with everything on / (most of the cloud servers) . Rsync is using in a

Re: Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On Tue 13 Aug 2013, Sherin A wrote: > But if a user create a > hard link to /etc/shadow from his home dir , and he request a restore , > then he can read the shadow files and decrypt it . If he can make a HARD link to the shadow file, then he can already read it - and worse. Paul -- Please us

Re: need help with an rsync patch

I'm going to give this one more shot and then wait for the experts to weigh in. I'll stick with your example of /etc/shadow, but this applies to any secured file on the system. On my system /etc/shadow is 640 (by default), so, as a normal user, I can't even see it (other than to see that it exist

Fwd: Re: need help with an rsync patch

On Tuesday 13 August 2013 12:23 PM, Joe wrote: Is there any way at all to say which is the original file and which is the hard link? I'll bet there isn't, although I' m not an internals guy at all. If so, this would be impossible to do. The inode is the "original", but all the file table entri

need help with an rsync patch

Can some one create a patch for excluding "hard link regular file" from copying ?. May be like a command flag , rsync --no-hardlink-copy -- -- Regards Sherin A http://www.sherin.co.in/ -- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the m

rsync patch

I've made a small patch to rsync that adds three options that are useful in data-recovery situations. I don't know whether the maintainer will want to add this to the official distribution, but he is free to do so if he wishes. At present, I don't have anywhere to host the patch but I wanted to m

rsync patch to allow content from one device file to be synced to another device file

I noticed that this topic appeared from time to time on the mailing list and that one patch exists (copy-devices.diff) from a previous thread which allowed rsync to operate with a source device file. The patch below, when combined with the 'copy-devices' patch, allows rsync to be operate betwe

Re: need a rsync patch..!

I completly agree with you, but i have a big question : Til i have this hang problem, i have set dozens of windows servers with both rsync and cygwin, and i never get this problem ... So i think there is something external (windows, network, etc.) that perharps influence cygwin and indirectly

Re: need a rsync patch..!

On 8/8/07, Steven Hartland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bad suggestion rsync under cygwin is pretty much a none starter fails a good > 90% > of the time due to issues with pipes and ssh under cygwin. The interix > version on > the other hand is solid with the exception of only supporting 2GB max

rsync patch to add Apple keychain support

Hi! In a project I'm working on, I needed a way to run rsync in daemon mode as a regular user without having the passwords readable to everybody accessing the console. With this chance rsync falls back to Apples keychain access if no secrets file is given. You need to put the passwords in

Re: need a rsync patch..!

- Original Message - From: "Matt McCutchen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You might try running your unixy tools under Cygwin ( http://www.cygwin.com/ ) instead of Interix. I know there are a lot of people happily using rsync under Cygwin, and if something goes wrong, there will be a much larger

Re: need a rsync patch..!

On 8/7/07, User of web Forum. Crafta.com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, I noticed you guys knowns the rsync source code: > Could you please tellme what patch to apply in order to solve this long > time issue I have: > http://www.interopcommunity.com/tm.aspx?m=12450&mpage=1&key=ア In the future, l

need a rsync patch..!

Hi, I noticed you guys knowns the rsync source code: Could you please tellme what patch to apply in order to solve this long time issue I have: http://www.interopcommunity.com/tm.aspx?m=12450&mpage=1&key=ア thanks in advance Aldo Matt McCutchen wrote: Wayne, I noticed that rsync's "*deleting

Re: rsync patch -flags fails to compile on Mac OSX

On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 12:44:11AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > However, after defining the missing flags in rsync.h I still get the > following errors: There were a bunch of old code idioms in that patch due to my inability to compile file-flags on my systems. I kluged something together

rsync patch -flags fails to compile on Mac OSX

I am trying to compile rsync 3.0.0cvs with the flags.diff patch on a Mac OSX G4. It fails because the flags UF_NOUNLINK, and SF_NOUNLINK do not exist on this platform. sys/stat.h only gives the following flags * Definitions of flags stored in file flags word. * * Super-user and owner

Re: Rsync patch for default ACLs and executability

A while ago, I wrote to the list: > I wrote a patch for rsync 2.6.6 that changes two things: [default ACLs > and preserving executability] In case it matters to anyone: I've been using the patched rsync (actually, I made additional changes after that patch) and it works decently...but I've convin

Rsync patch for default ACLs and executability

I wrote a patch for rsync 2.6.6 that changes two things: (1) When the receiving rsync creates a file in a directory with a default ACL and `--perms' is off, rsync uses the default ACL instead of the umask to calculate the new file's permissions. All programs that just use `open' and don't do an e

Re: rsync-2.6.2: NFS clients confused after an rsync [PATCH included]

On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 11:18:46AM -0400, Brian Childs wrote: > As a response to my original post, here's a patch that implements my > proposed solution. > > I've tested it, and it fixes the problem, but I'm afraid there may be > some hidden consequences of doing this. > I've refined my patch t

Re: rsync-2.6.2: NFS clients confused after an rsync [PATCH included]

As a response to my original post, here's a patch that implements my proposed solution. I've tested it, and it fixes the problem, but I'm afraid there may be some hidden consequences of doing this. If anyone can think of anything, please let me know. Thanks, Brian --- rsync-2.6.2/util.c.orig

Re: .rsync-/.rsync+ patch and --link-dest example

The patch below supercedes my patch dated 14 Jan 2003. The new version fixes serious problems due to memory reallocation/freeing of lists and is also more efficient. The scheme has been simplified to store excluded patterns in .rsync only (a "+ " pattern prefix may be used to force inclusion). Not

Re: .rsync-/.rsync+ patch and --link-dest example

>> This patch also adds an example for using --link-dest to the man page: > > I don't know if that is needed. Lacking context the example > has minimal meaning and compare-dest doesn't have an example A more complete context is available here: http://www.math.ualberta.ca/imaging/rlbacku

Re: .rsync-/.rsync+ patch and --link-dest example

On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 09:48:31AM -0700, John Bowman wrote: > This is a patch to add an --rsync-exclude option to rsync-2.5.6cvs. > File names in .rsync- (or .rsync+) are excluded (or included) from the file > lists associated with the current directory and all of its subdirectories. > > This h

.rsync-/.rsync+ patch and --link-dest example

This is a patch to add an --rsync-exclude option to rsync-2.5.6cvs. File names in .rsync- (or .rsync+) are excluded (or included) from the file lists associated with the current directory and all of its subdirectories. This has advantages over --cvs-exclude for backing up large file systems sinc

Re: rsync+ patch

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Martin Pool writes: > I'm inclined to apply this: at the very least, it doesn't look like it > could damage anything else. Any other opinions? Yes please! I would personally love to see that functionality supported in the stock rsync distributions. Since the pa

Re: rsync+ patch

I'm inclined to apply this: at the very least, it doesn't look like it could damage anything else. Any other opinions? -- Martin VA Linux Systems

Re: rsync+ patch

On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 11:41:50AM +1000, Martin Pool wrote: > I did skim it. What does it do? >From the website: Using rsync+ for file updates, a flexible, powerful replication mechanism can be developed for publishing source objects into the I2-DSI replication service,

Re: rsync+ patch

On 21 Jun 2001, Jos Backus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 10:34:59AM -0700, Jos Backus wrote: > > Here is Debra Weiss's patch to create rsync+, updated to rsync version 2.4.6 > > by me. More information about rsync+ can be found at > > > > http://www.ils.unc.edu/i2dsi/u

Re: rsync+ patch

On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 10:34:59AM -0700, Jos Backus wrote: > Here is Debra Weiss's patch to create rsync+, updated to rsync version 2.4.6 > by me. More information about rsync+ can be found at > > http://www.ils.unc.edu/i2dsi/unc_rsync+.html [patch elided] Just curious: has anybody looked

rsync+ patch

Here is Debra Weiss's patch to create rsync+, updated to rsync version 2.4.6 by me. More information about rsync+ can be found at http://www.ils.unc.edu/i2dsi/unc_rsync+.html diff -urN rsync-2.4.6/Makefile.in rsync-2.4.6-plus/Makefile.in --- rsync-2.4.6/Makefile.in Tue Sep 5 19:46:43 2

Re: rsync+ patch integration?

On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 10:03:28AM -0500, Alberto Accomazzi wrote: ... > I'm not sure why the patch never made it into the main rsync package > (nor do I know if it was ever submitted to tridge, I certainly didn't > see anything on the list about this) ... I found a saved private message dated Ju

Re: rsync+ patch integration?

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jos Backus writes: > Does anyone know why Debra Weiss's work on rsync+ was never integrated into > the main rsync source? > > http://www.ils.unc.edu/i2dsi/unc_rsync+.html > > Fwiw, I just finished porting her patch to 2.4.6, and would like to see this > becom

Re: rsync+ patch integration?

On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 04:04:06PM -0800, Dan Phoenix wrote: > hmm compiling this in freebsd > > config.h is unchanged > gcc -I. -I. -g -O2 -c rsync.c -o rsync.o > In file included from rsync.h:366, > from rsync.c:23: > proto.h:176: conflicting types for `strlcpy' > /usr/include/

Re: rsync+ patch integration?

; From: Andre Pang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Jos Backus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: rsync+ patch integration? > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 03:28:59PM -0800, Jos Backus wrote: > > > Does anyone know why Debra Weiss's

Re: rsync+ patch integration?

Jan 2001 10:44:13 +1100 > From: Andre Pang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Jos Backus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: rsync+ patch integration? > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 03:28:59PM -0800, Jos Backus wrote: > > > Does anyone know

Re: rsync+ patch integration?

On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 03:28:59PM -0800, Jos Backus wrote: > Does anyone know why Debra Weiss's work on rsync+ was never integrated into > the main rsync source? > > http://www.ils.unc.edu/i2dsi/unc_rsync+.html > > Fwiw, I just finished porting her patch to 2.4.6, and would like to see thi

rsync+ patch integration?

Does anyone know why Debra Weiss's work on rsync+ was never integrated into the main rsync source? http://www.ils.unc.edu/i2dsi/unc_rsync+.html Fwiw, I just finished porting her patch to 2.4.6, and would like to see this become part of rsync, as it strikes me as a very useful addition. Than