search for: pyxl

The python C API introduced Py_ssize_t in version 2.5. Prior to this int''s were used instead. Fix the build by way of a heinous preprocessor macro. diff -r 38ad3633ecaf tools/python/xen/lowlevel/xl/xl.c --- a/tools/python/xen/lowlevel/xl/xl.c Wed Oct 13 12:01:30 2010 +0100 +++ b/tools/python/xen/lowlevel/xl/xl.c Wed Oct 13 17:51:44 2010 +0100 @@ -51,6 +51,10 @@ #define CLS

Hi all, Tripped over a documentation bug. I'm guessing the behavior I've found isn't a bug in itself as it's kind of implied by chroot (unless the /etc/passwd db is read *before* you do the chroot call), so I'm calling it a documentation bug. The Setup: System A: running rsync --daemon from xinetd, configured with a read-only share. System B: syncing a local directory

Howdy everybody, Dunno if anyone's got a log monitor or mailing script set up for 404 errors on rsync.samba.org, but http://rsync.samba.org/rsync/fom-serve/cache/1.html emits a 404. It's where the the FAQ-O-Matic nav link that's found throughout the site eventually sends the browser. Sorry about posting this to the listserv, couldn't find a "tell the webmaster" link

Hello all, I've found some behavior in 2.5.5 that is contrary to the documentation in the man page. Specifically, I'm running an rsync server (i.e. from inetd with --daemon),and in the module definition I'm specifying the line "exclude nosyncdir". The documentation for rsyncd.conf indicates that this is exactly equivalent to using "--exclude nosyncdir" on the

And, I've found more. It turns out that even though the exclude directive is ignored for inbound data in rsyncd.conf, it is NOT ignored for the --delete option. I've seen this behavior occur when I've deleted a file from the sending side (client) that is inside a tree that's matched by the server-side (rsyncd) exclude directive. The deletion is ignored, as the documenation

...r7Nnf~LUzjw9=UghIJ>D>IvH!r ztwM7i>a6;YJ^{vM5fhCBtJdPKU1g_n_1QvX(uZ at wu0iUqL9Bd(tbDzlqrIKuj<it{ z_H3Ms$0$bZnF!g4T_Qjd1es37&5gg}AGNO;Kvp9b${<COR+e6a>jr at m(gvj=((9ft z15A(mp3L`3YF6d}pzsc$?jBw{WzRph9>ANHF&`w&uc82~;RI-H4b`R6E~W=}NMNbh zUeU9!rqojy922N0neeFthx+3nK24k0e2pYxlym0chAX}9Mc;i&-vQ}t5_FL<^0GqT zvxC@(5L`1qQZ9@^JD|DGc at T>&Iy+Zgm&E`tJmP^gm#B+5fhq9&$^>ABR{>3<h+=&Q zdkPCo+Ho5J!x*6~03;g=I1N;^_udD~7d#75J=J$6P}1bHsE^c1Y;lmNkr1vRe(%z= zafxToS at v!l{xX<@cwm7*L-E<9bsrvEwhE;h-Y%$zr7(Sc*1qTUCzjUG#t(*vQQ+6D zK?|YU at sA2)H)C8T`mU...

Please ignore that email. I just realized my error - missing the all important = on the line. DUH. *shakes head* Sorry folks. Scott

Hi folks, me again. I'm writing this primarily so that it will get posted to a listserve archive and snarfed up by Google for future people's note. When using the exclude directive in rsyncd.conf (i.e. using rsync from inetd), I've found that it appears to be implemented to operate in one data flow direction only, that direction being "out" of the "share" (or