Hi, On 2026-05-30 at 11:50-05:00, W. Knight wrote: > On May 29, 2026 10:19:16 AM CDT, Nguyễn Gia Phong wrote: > >Hello Guix, > > > > As mentioned by Dariqq on Codeberg [1], the latest rsync version > > comes with some regressions [2, 3, 4, 5] > > while fixing some security issues [6]. > > > > 4 and 5 are particularly concerning to me as they can lead > > to full disks and thus a tricky situation on BTRFS > > (though I'd assume BTRFS users don't use rsync for backups?). > > > > I'd love some advices and opinions to navigate this situation. > > > > 1: https://codeberg.org/guix/guix/pulls/8817#issuecomment-16081154 > > 2: https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/issues/897 > > 3: https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/issues/922 (absolute source path) > > 4: https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/issues/915 (--link-dest) > > 5: https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/issues/910 (--delete-missing-args) > > 6: https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/blob/v3.4.3/NEWS.md > > Thanks for bringing this up. > > I use rsnapshot (which uses rsync+ssh) to backup > my other linux boxes to a server btrfs data partition. > > Of the listed issues (including #6) I think #3 > is the only issue that would break my main use case, > since I use absolute urls to specify what to copy. > > In the short term I don't think #4 and #5 apply for me; > since with rsnapshot I pull from instead of push to the remotes (#5); > and I don't think rsnapshot uses rsync with daemon mode (#4). > Unless those issues occur in other use cases not listed. > > If you decide to update guix to this version I can > keep my backup account pointing to a previous version > until #3 is fixed, merged, and pulled into guix.
I regret to inform you that rsync 3.4.3 landed on the master branch of Guix on 2026-05-22 [1], and this thread is asking if we should downgrade or do something similar. Best wishes, Phong
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
