search for: drdykstra

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5644 Summary: Option to recheck basis dirs for existing dest files Product: rsync Version: 3.1.0 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned@samba.org ReportedBy:

The second rsync-2.5.6 pre-release version is now available at: http://rsync.samba.org/ftp/rsync/preview/rsync-2.5.6pre2.tar.gz ftp://rsync.samba.org/pub/rsync/preview/rsync-2.5.6pre2.tar.gz rsync://rsync.samba.org/ftp/rsync/preview/rsync-2.5.6pre2.tar.gz There's also a corresponding '.sig' file that contains a gpg signature of the file; the public key is available on the

Does rsync has directory name length limit? I was trying to rsync a directory that has the name length of 34 characters and getting permission denied error. $ rsync -avz --delete --force -e ssh /usr/local/apache/htdocs 192.168.0.2:/usr/local/apache building file list ... readlink htdocs/CorporateLegalTimesEDITORIAL_files/cBug_blueXs.gif: Permission denied readlink

Hi, I have been having a problem that seems related to previously reported problems but persists. I am syncing from a 2.6 Solaris box to a 2.8 solaris box. All are running rsync 2.5.5. When I sync (commands simplified for example, always using rsh): 2.8box% rsync -e rsh 2.6box:/path/path/stuff/ /path/path/newstuff/ i.e., the 2.6 box is the server, I get spurious, persistent but inconsistent

The first rsync-2.5.6 pre-release version is now available at: http://rsync.samba.org/ftp/rsync/preview/rsync-2.5.6pre1.tar.gz ftp://rsync.samba.org/pub/rsync/preview/rsync-2.5.6pre1.tar.gz rsync://rsync.samba.org/ftp/rsync/preview/rsync-2.5.6pre1.tar.gz There's also a corresponding '.sig' file that contains a gpg signature of the file; the public key is available on the

I'm working on trying to get rsync 2.5.6pre1 available for people to test more widely. I'm out of time for today, and I'm stuck on a problem that some machines on build.samba.org are showing on the 'chgrp' test. I can reproduce this on my home redhat 7.3 system too. It appears to be a timing problem because when I do strace -F -f on it the problem goes away. Everything seems

Well I was hoping to get the 2.5.6 out today, but I think I made too many Cygwin changes this evening for comfort and I'd like to allow one more day of testing. Cygwin users, please test as much as you can and post any problems. - Dave Dykstra

2.5.6pre1 bombs on Sunos4 gcc with these errors popt/popthelp.c: In function `singleOptionDefaultValue': popt/popthelp.c:137: invalid operands to binary + popt/popthelp.c:141: invalid operands to binary + popt/popthelp.c:145: invalid operands to binary + popt/popthelp.c:149: invalid operands to binary + because it's depending on sprintf to return the number of bytes

Rsync release 2.5.6 is now available at http://ftp.samba.org/ftp/rsync/rsync-2.5.6.tar.gz ftp://ftp.samba.org/pub/rsync/rsync-2.5.6.tar.gz rsync://ftp.samba.org/ftp/rsync/rsync-2.5.6.tar.gz There is a '.sig' file at corresponding URLs with a gpg signature; the public key is available on the pgp keyservers. NEWS for rsync version 2.5.6, aka the dwd-between-jobs release Changes

Thanks, I will apply your patch, especially since (for the record) Hideaki posted in a reply: > > The suggested fix Daniel Hartmeier (an OpenBSD developer) had when > > I asked (for I'm not really a coder and I wanted to double check > > that this was a valid problem) was making the mask[w] assignment > > conditional like thus: > > > > if (w <

The patch from 2-1/2 years ago for changing copy-unsafe-links to follow unsafe links on the destination side also included essentially this patch. When I looked at it, however, I asked why in the world is unsafe_symlink() doing strdup() in the first place. I think you could get rid of the calls to strdup() and the new local variables and possibly do a couple casts inside the function instead. -

I had a friend run some Cygwin tests and we found that --modify-window=1 works just as well as --modify-window=2 on FAT filesystems to copy files from Unix and detect the difference in granularity. FAT filesystems always have timestamps that have an even number of seconds. On the other hand, NTFS filesystems can store the modification time down to the second, whereas previously people on this