I applied a post-2.6.7 patch regarding exclude.c you sent via this mailing list. I might apply the same patch set twice. Could it be the reason ?
I've downloaded sources and applied both patches again and everything works as expected. Thanks! Tev > -----Original Message----- > From: Wayne Davison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 20. mars 2006 18:48 > To: Tevfik Karagülle > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Rsync acl patch 1.113 compilation problems on cygwin > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 02:40:33PM +0100, Tevfik Karag?lle wrote: > > rsync.c:105: warning: unused parameter 'dflt_perms' > > This would seem to indicate that the 3rd hunk in the patch > for rsync.c didn't get applied: > > @@ -116,7 +118,7 @@ mode_t dest_mode(mode_t flist_mode, mode > cur_mode |= (cur_mode & 0444) >> 2; > } > } else > - cur_mode = flist_mode & ACCESSPERMS & ~orig_umask; > + cur_mode = flist_mode & ACCESSPERMS & dflt_perms; > if (daemon_chmod_modes && !S_ISLNK(flist_mode)) > cur_mode = tweak_mode(cur_mode, daemon_chmod_modes); > return (flist_mode & ~CHMOD_BITS) | (cur_mode & CHMOD_BITS); > > I tried applying revision 1.113 of the acls.diff to 2.6.7, > and none of the hunks failed, so I don't know what might have > caused this for you. > > > generator.c: In function `recv_generator': > > generator.c:876: error: too few arguments to function `dest_mode' > > The dest_mode() call is at line 883 in both 2.6.7 and the CVS > version of generator.c, so something is quite different about > your generator.c. > This hunk of the acls.diff patch added the extra arg to the > dest_mode() > call: > > @@ -871,7 +880,8 @@ static void recv_generator(char *fname, > if (!preserve_perms) { > int exists = statret == 0 > && S_ISDIR(st.st_mode) == S_ISDIR(file->mode); > - file->mode = dest_mode(file->mode, st.st_mode, exists); > + file->mode = dest_mode(file->mode, st.st_mode, > dflt_perms, > + exists); > } > > if (S_ISDIR(file->mode)) { > > > generator.c:757: warning: 'dflt_perms' defined but not used > > This makes me think that several hunks failed to apply, since > dflt_perms is referenced in 3 of them (not countint the hunk > that defined it). Did you apply other patches to the source > prior to the acls.diff patch? > > ..wayne.. > -- To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
