Re: rsync for DOS

Because rsync requires cygwin to run, other solutions (such as unison) immediately become more attractive. Also, someone correct me if I am wrong, any limitation that cygwin has (files > 2GB, etc) rsync also inherits. At 11:49 AM 2/17/2003 +, you wrote: On Sunday 16 Feb 03, Chris Simmonds w

Re: rsync for DOS

On Sunday 16 Feb 03, Chris Simmonds writes: > I don't think it would be too difficult, but is there any point when > there is a fully functional Cygwin port? Huh? You can already get it from . Or did I misunderstand your question? (It's not so much a "port". It simply buil

Re: rsync for DOS

W. D. wrote: At 11:18 2/14/2003, Chris Simmonds, wrote: I have recently completed a port of rsync to DOS. It is compiled using Borland C 3.1 to run in real-mode DOS (because my target was a hand-held computer with little memory). There are a few compromises, for example it is client only,

Re: rsync for DOS

At 11:18 2/14/2003, Chris Simmonds, wrote: >I have recently completed a port of rsync to DOS. It is compiled using >Borland C 3.1 to run in real-mode DOS (because my target was a hand-held >computer with little memory). There are a few compromises, for example >it is client only, it does not sup

Re: rsync for DOS

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 05:18:13PM +, Chris Simmonds wrote: > I have recently completed a port of rsync to DOS. It is compiled using > Borland C 3.1 to run in real-mode DOS (because my target was a hand-held > computer with little memory). There are a few compromises, for example > it is cli

rsync for DOS

I have recently completed a port of rsync to DOS. It is compiled using Borland C 3.1 to run in real-mode DOS (because my target was a hand-held computer with little memory). There are a few compromises, for example it is client only, it does not support rsh or ssh and the file names on the serv