rsync - Jul 2002 - new rsync release needed soon?

On the subject of needed patches, I just recently completed a patch for
librsync that fixed the mdfour code to have uint_64 or 2 uint_32's for
size.  Without this, the checksums on files >512Megs are incorrect.  The
code should drop into rsync without a hitch.  The same goes for mdfour in
samba, becuase that is where librsync got the code from anyway.

						Robert Weber
						University of Colorado
						Boulder
--------
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 10:21:49AM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> > On 30 Jul 2002, Wayne Davison <wayned@users.sourceforge.net>
wrote:
> > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Martin Pool wrote:
> > > > The --password-file option only applies to rsync daemon
connections,
> > > > not ssh.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps we should make rsync complain about such options that
don't make
> > > sense (another example being trying to use -e with a
"::" hostspec)?
> > 
> > There's a patch in cvs to make it complain about -e with
"::".
> > 
> > The manual actually already says that --password-file does not effect 
> > remote shells, but I have made it a bit more obvious.  
> > 
> > I agree that a warning would be good.
> > 
> > Shall we do a new release soon?
> > 
> > There's just one more change I would like to put in, which is
partially
> > rolling back the IPv6 patch so that it uses the old code, unmodified,
> > if --disable-ipv6 is specified.  I'm not sure this needs to go in 
> > before the next release though.  I think it would reduce the overall
> > level of pain, particularly on older platforms.
> 
> Yes I think a new release is needed soon, but there's more patches than
> that that should get in.  A bunch of them have been posted and I was hoping
> you were keeping track of them and would be putting more of them in.
> 
> The patch that I'd most like to see get in JD Paul's patch for
using SSH
> and daemon mode together.  We still don't have an agreement on what the
> syntax should be.  I think the combination of -e ssh and :: which he
> implemented is the most understandable syntax and we should just go with
> it.
> 
> I think there should be a special call for testing when you a release is
> about ready to go, and give people about a week to soak it.  We want to be
> sure we get a stable release.
> 
> - Dave Dykstra
> 
> -- 
> To unsubscribe or change options:
http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsy
nc
> Before posting, read: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
--------

----------
Status: by weberr Wed Jul 31 12:26:16 2002
----------

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 12:29:31PM -0600, Robert Weber
wrote:
> On the subject of needed patches, I just recently completed a patch for
> librsync that fixed the mdfour code to have uint_64 or 2 uint_32's for
> size.  Without this, the checksums on files >512Megs are incorrect.  The
> code should drop into rsync without a hitch.  The same goes for mdfour in
> samba, becuase that is where librsync got the code from anyway.
> 
Actually... I further refined and cleaned this patch and it's in my librsync
delta refactor patch. I believe this patch also offers a significant
performance increase... I can extract out just the mdfour changes into a
seperate patch and submit it, just tell me where you want it.


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ABO: finger abo@minkirri.apana.org.au for more info, including pgp key
----------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Robert Weber wrote:
> On the subject of needed patches, I just recently completed a patch for
> librsync that fixed the mdfour code to have uint_64 or 2 uint_32's for
> size.  Without this, the checksums on files >512Megs are incorrect.
In order to interoperate with older versions of rsync, wouldn't we need
to continue to generate the incorrect checksums on all but the newest
(freshly bumped up) protocol number?

..wayne..