[Bug 2294] Detect renamed files and handle by renaming instead of delete/re-send

2024-04-02 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294 --- Comment #41 from Mihnea-Costin Grigore --- The discussion about file systems like ZFS/BTRFS/etc. and their various snapshot mechanisms is off-topic relative to this feature request, since they are very different technologies used for different

[Bug 6741] 'deleting' messages show up in improper places

2024-02-29 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6741 --- Comment #5 from Marc Aurèle La France --- Created attachment 18263 --> https://bugzilla.samba.org/attachment.cgi?id=18263=edit rsync stdout filter Just something I've come up with to work around this issue. Not perfect but does the job.

[Bug 15585] New: rsync ends still with error 22 when try to deleting many files

2024-02-16 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15585 Bug ID: 15585 Summary: rsync ends still with error 22 when try to deleting many files Product: rsync Version: 3.2.0 Hardware: All OS: All Status:

[Bug 2294] Detect renamed files and handle by renaming instead of delete/re-send

2024-02-09 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294 --- Comment #39 from andy --- > This feature request is so old it has lost relavence because btrfs/zfs/etc > are more optimal backup solutions than rsync. Funny I am doing exactly this, but I came to rsync looking for a backup for when ZFS fails.

[Bug 15546] New: disable of sorting when files to transfer is fed via --files-from

2023-12-31 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15546 Bug ID: 15546 Summary: disable of sorting when files to transfer is fed via --files-from Product: rsync Version: 3.2.0 Hardware: All OS: All

[Bug 12806] Deleting in a row of hardlinked snapshots resets file permissions.

2023-09-21 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12806 --- Comment #7 from Aryo Da --- I think this a severe bug for all backup use cases of rsync that take a full snapshot with permissions (--perms) by creating hardlinks to unchanged files + copies of changed files (--link-dest): -> Whenever an old

[Bug 12806] Deleting in a row of hardlinked snapshots resets file permissions.

2023-09-21 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12806 --- Comment #6 from Aryo Da --- Created attachment 18117 --> https://bugzilla.samba.org/attachment.cgi?id=18117=edit MRE (minimal reproducible example) as bash script to reproduce the bug Rename to "setup.sh" and make it executable... -- You

[Bug 7809] I/O errors other than IOERR_GENERAL should not suppress deletion

2023-07-26 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7809 --- Comment #6 from Jeffrey Simon --- 3. The script does not work from launchd running as root. I should have given the failure mode, which is the following: rsync: opendir "/Volumes/Backup1/." failed: Operation not permitted (1) rsync error:

[Bug 7809] I/O errors other than IOERR_GENERAL should not suppress deletion

2023-07-26 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7809 --- Comment #5 from Jeffrey Simon --- "Excludes are relative to the source dir". Are you saying that the excludes should be --exclude=.DocumentRevisions-V100 --exclude=.TemporaryItems --exclude=.Trashes? That is a rhetorical question, because I no

[Bug 7809] I/O errors other than IOERR_GENERAL should not suppress deletion

2023-07-20 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7809 --- Comment #4 from Kevin Korb --- Your excludes aren't working because excludes are relative to the source dir not /. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. -- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid

[Bug 7809] I/O errors other than IOERR_GENERAL should not suppress deletion

2023-07-20 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7809 --- Comment #3 from Jeffrey Simon --- One other point to follow up my first post of 2023-07-21: None of these issues occurred on macOS Monterey 12.4.x -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. -- Please use

[Bug 7809] I/O errors other than IOERR_GENERAL should not suppress deletion

2023-07-20 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7809 --- Comment #2 from Jeffrey Simon --- This is an old ticket, but I am getting the same or similar problem in 2023 with rsync on macOS Ventura 13.4.1. Here is the first attempt and partial results: rsync -av --delete /Volumes/Backup1/

[Bug 15393] New: rsync attempts to set extended attributes while in dry-run

2023-06-10 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15393 Bug ID: 15393 Summary: rsync attempts to set extended attributes while in dry-run Product: rsync Version: 3.2.0 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW

[Bug 5124] Parallelize the rsync run using multiple threads and/or connections

2023-04-17 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5124 --- Comment #12 from Paulo Marques --- Using multiple connections also helps when you have LACP network links, which are relatively common in data center setups to have both redundancy and increased bandwidth. If you have two 1Gbps links

[Bug 15335] Environment variables in remote host's path do not resolve properly

2023-03-15 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15335 Wayne Davison changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 15335] New: Environment variables in remote host's path do not resolve properly

2023-03-13 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15335 Bug ID: 15335 Summary: Environment variables in remote host's path do not resolve properly Product: rsync Version: 3.2.0 Hardware: x86 OS: Linux

[Bug 10170] rsync should support reflink similar to cp --reflink

2023-01-30 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10170 --- Comment #6 from Brian J. Murrell --- Does this --reflink feature have any parity/functionality with --link-dest, which is often used in "snapshot" style [i.e. daily] backup scripts on non-snapshottable filesystems such as XFS? XFS supports

[Bug 8690] Simple ACLs abort with "Unsupported attribute value (124)"

2023-01-10 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8690 --- Comment #1 from Björn Jacke --- AIXC type ACLs are incompatible with other ACLs like thised used on Linux. The only ACLs which are standardized are actually NFS4 ACLs. Rsync doesn't really support those unfortunately, yet. Linux also lacks

[Bug 15163] rsync timeout non-effective and incorrect behaviour

2022-12-13 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15163 --- Comment #6 from roland --- nobody has a clue? i think proper rsync timeout handling is important. i have had whole nightly backup procedures hung for the whole night because rsync got stuck and didn't get timeout, i.e. machines did not get

[Bug 15254] rsync performs full replication with option -I since last upgrade to version 3.2.3 protocol version 31

2022-12-03 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15254 Frank B changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|WORKSFORME |FIXED --- Comment #10 from Frank B --- Ok, so

[Bug 15254] rsync performs full replication with option -I since last upgrade to version 3.2.3 protocol version 31

2022-12-03 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15254 --- Comment #9 from Wayne Davison --- The combo of -I with -u briefly changed to be broken but it was fixed. The -u option means that older files on the sender are ignored. -I means that files with the same date are TRANSFERRED. When that was not

[Bug 15254] rsync performs full replication with option -I since last upgrade to version 3.2.3 protocol version 31

2022-12-03 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15254 Wayne Davison changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME Status|REOPENED

[Bug 15254] rsync performs full replication with option -I since last upgrade to version 3.2.3 protocol version 31

2022-12-02 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15254 --- Comment #8 from Frank B --- Quick addition: You can say it's a "corner case", a result of wrong assumptions regarding u/I or a weird usecase but you can't say "nothing has changed" since that clearly isn't true. The question is: is uI

[Bug 15254] rsync performs full replication with option -I since last upgrade to version 3.2.3 protocol version 31

2022-12-02 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15254 Frank B changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|WORKSFORME

[Bug 15254] rsync performs full replication with option -I since last upgrade to version 3.2.3 protocol version 31

2022-12-01 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15254 --- Comment #7 from Frank B --- Yes, it has. The crontab was unchanged for months and directly after the update of rsync via apt, it started performing full replications. It's clearly a result of the new binary. -- You are receiving this mail

[Bug 15254] rsync performs full replication with option -I since last upgrade to version 3.2.3 protocol version 31

2022-12-01 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15254 --- Comment #6 from Kevin Korb --- I can confirm that something did change... # mkdir /tmp/src /tmp/dest # touch /tmp/src/a /tmp/src/b /tmp/src/c # rsync -vai /tmp/src/ /tmp/dest/ sending incremental file list .d..t.. ./ >f+ a

[Bug 15254] rsync performs full replication with option -I since last upgrade to version 3.2.3 protocol version 31

2022-12-01 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15254 --- Comment #5 from Kevin Korb --- I had the same knee jerk reaction as Wayne to this question. -I means re-copy everything (or at least re-diff everything unless --whole-file). But I never attempted to mix it with -u so I held my tongue. Is it

[Bug 15254] rsync performs full replication with option -I since last upgrade to version 3.2.3 protocol version 31

2022-12-01 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15254 --- Comment #4 from Wayne Davison --- No it didn't. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. -- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list. To unsubscribe or change options:

[Bug 15254] rsync performs full replication with option -I since last upgrade to version 3.2.3 protocol version 31

2022-12-01 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15254 --- Comment #3 from Frank B --- The behavior still changed as this was working for months and clearly changed directly after upgrading to the new binary but it's okay for me. Looks like the I should have been l in my case due to a copy and paste

[Bug 15254] rsync performs full replication with option -I since last upgrade to version 3.2.3 protocol version 31

2022-11-30 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15254 Wayne Davison changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 15254] rsync performs full replication with option -I since last upgrade to version 3.2.3 protocol version 31

2022-11-26 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15254 --- Comment #1 from Frank B --- rsync --version rsync version 3.2.3 protocol version 31 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. -- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list.

[Bug 15254] New: rsync performs full replication with option -I since last upgrade to version 3.2.3 protocol version 31

2022-11-26 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15254 Bug ID: 15254 Summary: rsync performs full replication with option -I since last upgrade to version 3.2.3 protocol version 31 Product: rsync Version: 3.2.0 Hardware: x64

[Bug 13082] [REQ] Hardware / SSE based MD5 operations

2022-11-14 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13082 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Bartlett --- Samba 4.11 moved to GnuTLS for our MD5 and other hash operations, and so uses any hardware optimisation available there. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. --

[Bug 12964] Maybe we can add the '--bind-cpu' option

2022-10-12 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12964 --- Comment #1 from Stefan Metzmacher --- On Linux you can use taskset (in combination with nice and ionice)... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. -- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid

[Bug 15163] rsync timeout non-effective and incorrect behaviour

2022-09-11 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15163 --- Comment #5 from roland --- apparently, this is causing the problem: if (am_receiver) { return; } if i comment out the return statement, things work again. @wayne, what is the reason that timeout checking

[Bug 15163] rsync timeout non-effective and incorrect behaviour

2022-09-11 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15163 --- Comment #4 from roland --- here with debug=all working correctly # /root/rsync/rsync-3.2.5/rsync -avi --timeout=5 --exclude='/proc' --exclude='/dev/' --exclude='/sys' --debug=all --msgs2stderr root@172.20.37.189:/iscsipool

[Bug 15163] rsync timeout non-effective and incorrect behaviour

2022-09-11 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15163 --- Comment #3 from roland --- ah, getting a clue in io.c static void check_timeout(BOOL allow_keepalive, int keepalive_flags) { time_t t, chk; /* On the receiving side, the generator is now the one that decides * when

[Bug 15163] rsync timeout non-effective and incorrect behaviour

2022-09-11 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15163 --- Comment #2 from roland --- here is another bugreport, where timeout is not effective/working https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944132 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. -- Please use

[Bug 15163] rsync timeout non-effective

2022-09-11 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15163 --- Comment #1 from roland --- here is some strace from the backup host to show the difference if i set timeout=60 , rsyncing "root@172.20.37.189:/" hangs forever: 08:25:30 select(4, [3], [], [3], {tv_sec=30, tv_usec=0}) = 1 (in [3], left

[Bug 15163] New: rsync timeout non-effective

2022-09-05 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15163 Bug ID: 15163 Summary: rsync timeout non-effective Product: rsync Version: 3.2.0 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5

[Bug 15122] Potential vulnerability: rsync creates files outside the target directory

2022-08-30 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15122 --- Comment #3 from Aditya Basu --- Apologies for the late response. It is definitely a bad idea to mix multi-case systems. However, note that even copying between case-honoring systems can have similar consequences, for ex. case-insensitive

[Bug 15122] Potential vulnerability: rsync creates files outside the target directory

2022-08-23 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15122 --- Comment #2 from Wayne Davison --- BTW, what happens in the test case you provided is that the generator creates TOPDIR and then TOPDIR/secret dirs before asking the sender to start a transfer of TOPDIR/secret/config. It then goes on to notice

[Bug 15122] Potential vulnerability: rsync creates files outside the target directory

2022-08-23 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15122 --- Comment #1 from Wayne Davison --- Yes, it's always bad to copy from a case-honoring filesystem to a case-ignoring filesystem as the filenames can overlap. This is something that the user just shouldn't do, as rsync is written to handle

[Bug 5642] Support use as an engine behind a GUI

2022-08-23 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5642 --- Comment #1 from c.bu...@posteo.jp --- As a maintainer of one of that rsync-using-GUIs I would find that also very nice. But I don't see an advantage with XML. To complex and not human readable. Cost a lot of resources (think about

[Bug 15154] New: manpage: Describe default behavior in context of --old-args/--protect-args

2022-08-23 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15154 Bug ID: 15154 Summary: manpage: Describe default behavior in context of --old-args/--protect-args Product: rsync Version: 3.2.0 Hardware: All OS: All

[Bug 15122] New: Potential vulnerability: rsync creates files outside the target directory

2022-07-14 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15122 Bug ID: 15122 Summary: Potential vulnerability: rsync creates files outside the target directory Product: rsync Version: 3.2.0 Hardware: All OS: Linux

[Bug 13463] Please consider using the IP_FREEBIND socket option

2022-04-11 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13463 --- Comment #5 from Simon Deziel --- The `Restart=on-failure` option was added in https://github.com/WayneD/rsync/commit/d41bb98c09bf0b999c4eee4e2125c7e5d0747ec4 This should paper over the problem of late showing IPv6 addresses due to DAD taking

[Bug 13463] Please consider using the IP_FREEBIND socket option

2022-03-30 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13463 --- Comment #4 from Simon Deziel --- Since rsyncd exits with error code 10 ("Error in socket I/O") there are two possible ways to improve the systemd unit: [Service] ... RestartForceExitStatus=10 Or: [Service] ... Restart=on-failure Both

[Bug 13463] Please consider using the IP_FREEBIND socket option

2022-03-30 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13463 --- Comment #3 from Andreas Hasenack --- Thanks for all the opinions. I have one remaining issue, and that is with "systemctl start rsync.service" not detecting the failure right away. The systemd unit file calls rsync like this: [Service]

[Bug 8682] Skip current transfer keyboard function

2022-03-04 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8682 --- Comment #6 from Joachim Wagner --- The "echo > sourcefile" workaround seems to not trigger an error, at least not straight away and at least on XFS, but instead speeds up the operation and stops writing more data to the target file. Observation

[Bug 14962] Crash/restart using rsync 3.2.3 on M1 Mac

2022-01-27 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
to a "warning" level before memoryd started killing things. If that's what you're seeing, it's not an rsync bug, it's a bug in macOS. Mike > On Jan 27, 2022, at 11:26AM, just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via > rsync wrote: > > https://bugzilla.samba.org

[Bug 14962] New: Crash/restart using rsync 3.2.3 on M1 Mac

2022-01-27 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14962 Bug ID: 14962 Summary: Crash/restart using rsync 3.2.3 on M1 Mac Product: rsync Version: 3.2.0 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal

[Bug 11879] escape rrsync restricted folder

2021-12-27 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11879 Wayne Davison changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug 14916] New: --times act like a skip switch if --compare-dest is used

2021-11-22 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14916 Bug ID: 14916 Summary: --times act like a skip switch if --compare-dest is used Product: rsync Version: 3.1.3 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW

[Bug 10629] rsync follows symlinks that point to same directory / endless loop

2021-11-08 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10629 --- Comment #2 from Kevin Korb --- Since find is one of the few utilities that actually corrects for symlink loops you can use it as a workaround. Something like: cd /source/path ; find -L . -print | rsync ... --copy-links --files-from=- ./

[Bug 10629] rsync follows symlinks that point to same directory / endless loop

2021-11-08 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10629 Timothee Besset changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tt...@ttimo.net --- Comment #1 from

[Bug 12769] error allocating core memory buffers (code 22) depending on source file system

2021-10-05 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12769 --- Comment #14 from Roland Haberkorn --- After the new version made it into my system I can confirm it works like a charm. Many thanks for the effort. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. -- Please use

[Bug 14798] New: Metadata traffic --- uncompressed with -z, interaction with --bwlimit and ssh compression

2021-08-17 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14798 Bug ID: 14798 Summary: Metadata traffic --- uncompressed with -z, interaction with --bwlimit and ssh compression Product: rsync Version: 3.1.3 Hardware: All

[Bug 14683] failed to set permissions on symlinks; need `--omit-link-permissions` option

2021-04-07 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14683 --- Comment #2 from Ciprian Dorin Craciun --- (In reply to Ciprian Dorin Craciun from comment #1) Trying to `strace` what `rsync` does in my OpenAFS use-case I've found that the only syscals invoked by `rysync` (and pertaining to the file in

[Bug 14683] failed to set permissions on symlinks; need `--omit-link-permissions` option

2021-04-07 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14683 --- Comment #1 from Ciprian Dorin Craciun --- I've encountered a similar situation, but with OpenAFS, which for some reason reports the protection for symlinks as `rwxr-xr-x`. Thus using `rsync` with `--perms` and targeting an OpenAFS folder

[Bug 14683] New: failed to set permissions on symlinks; need `--omit-link-permissions` option

2021-04-01 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14683 Bug ID: 14683 Summary: failed to set permissions on symlinks; need `--omit-link-permissions` option Product: rsync Version: 3.2.0 Hardware: All OS: All

[Bug 2294] Detect renamed files and handle by renaming instead of delete/re-send

2021-01-16 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294 --- Comment #38 from Claudius Ellsel --- This basically is some personal preference. I know that I can do this on btrfs (which is used on the system I want to back up from), also pretty easy with tools like snapper. Maybe it would be feasible to do

[Bug 2294] Detect renamed files and handle by renaming instead of delete/re-send

2021-01-15 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294 --- Comment #37 from elatl...@gmail.com --- The btrfs equivalent is a bit more rough but (link for rename); #./btrfs-snapshots-diff.py -sb -p /media/btrfs/v_1/s_1 -c /media/btrfs/v_1/s_2 | grep -E path=. | grep -v utimes | tail -n +2

[Bug 2294] Detect renamed files and handle by renaming instead of delete/re-send

2021-01-15 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294 --- Comment #36 from elatl...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Claudius Ellsel from comment #35) > This is going off-topic On such an old bug with modern workarouds I think it's worth talking about. > backup drive is NTFS currently, which would

[Bug 2294] Detect renamed files and handle by renaming instead of delete/re-send

2021-01-15 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294 --- Comment #35 from Claudius Ellsel --- (In reply to elatllat from comment #34) >Yes you can easily access files on a COW-FS backup; it's a file system, that's >>what it's for. This is going off-topic, but my backup drive is NTFS currently,

[Bug 2294] Detect renamed files and handle by renaming instead of delete/re-send

2021-01-15 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294 --- Comment #34 from elatl...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Claudius Ellsel from comment #33) Yes you can easily access files on a COW-FS backup; it's a file system, that's what it's for. If you want to review changes before backup you can just diff

[Bug 2294] Detect renamed files and handle by renaming instead of delete/re-send

2021-01-15 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294 --- Comment #33 from Claudius Ellsel --- Hm, those backups won't work on file level, though afaik. Thus I cannot easily access files on a backup drive for example. Also I want to use this as some kind of confirm stage a bit like committing with git

[Bug 2294] Detect renamed files and handle by renaming instead of delete/re-send

2021-01-15 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294 --- Comment #32 from elatl...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Claudius Ellsel from comment #31) Yes any COW FS with "send/receive" will have inherent rename handaling, and will be faster than rsync because the diffs are inherent. With zfs one can even

[Bug 2294] Detect renamed files and handle by renaming instead of delete/re-send

2021-01-15 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294 --- Comment #31 from Claudius Ellsel --- To me and others it still seems relevant. I have to admit though that I haven't looked much into other solutions for backups like btrfs send/receive commands. I suppose that were the ones you meant? Note

[Bug 8367] Add a feature to --rename-existing files

2021-01-15 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8367 Claudius Ellsel changed: What|Removed |Added CC||claudius.ell...@live.de --- Comment #7

[Bug 2294] Detect renamed files and handle by renaming instead of delete/re-send

2021-01-15 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294 --- Comment #30 from elatl...@gmail.com --- This feature request is so old it has lost relavence because btrfs/zfs/etc are more optimal backup solutions than rsync. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. --

[Bug 10263] Extend Behaviour of the --fuzzy Parameter to Consider Directories

2021-01-15 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10263 --- Comment #3 from Claudius Ellsel --- I have to admit that I only skimmed through the description. There is definitely some more to this than in the other bug. Have a look at https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294#c14 though. The

[Bug 10263] Extend Behaviour of the --fuzzy Parameter to Consider Directories

2021-01-15 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10263 --- Comment #2 from Haravikk --- It's certainly similar but I wouldn't say a direct duplicate; 2294 is requesting detection of move/rename *somehow* which is a tricky proposition (especially with rsync defaulting towards incremental send rather

[Bug 2294] Detect renamed files and handle by renaming instead of delete/re-send

2021-01-15 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294 --- Comment #29 from Claudius Ellsel --- As another motivation for this, I use rsync for backups and would like to be able to see whether files have just been renamed or were deleted and some others newly created (which currently cannot be

[Bug 2294] Detect renamed files and handle by renaming instead of delete/re-send

2021-01-15 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294 Claudius Ellsel changed: What|Removed |Added CC||claudius.ell...@live.de --- Comment #28

[Bug 10263] Extend Behaviour of the --fuzzy Parameter to Consider Directories

2021-01-15 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10263 Claudius Ellsel changed: What|Removed |Added CC||claudius.ell...@live.de --- Comment #1

[Bug 14529] Please add option to save metadata to single file to speed up backups

2020-10-11 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14529 --- Comment #1 from Andras Korn --- It's completely fine if using this "database" in writable modules implies or requires `max connections = 1` to avoid concurrency/locking issues. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact

[Bug 14529] New: Please add option to save metadata to single file to speed up backups

2020-10-11 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14529 Bug ID: 14529 Summary: Please add option to save metadata to single file to speed up backups Product: rsync Version: 3.2.0 Hardware: All OS: All

[Bug 14463] rsync 3.2.2 server protocol error

2020-08-15 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14463 --- Comment #4 from Wayne Davison --- The pre-release patches aren't guaranteed to be backward compatible, and in this case the bits that were used in a couple different patches actually conflicted with each other. So, when --atimes was promoted

[Bug 14463] rsync 3.2.2 server protocol error

2020-08-12 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14463 --- Comment #3 from bumkick...@yahoo.com --- It's not a trivial exercise to upgrade the rsync version on the target system, so it would be useful if there was some kind of "back patch" available | suspect there might be others with similar issues

[Bug 14463] rsync 3.2.2 server protocol error

2020-08-12 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14463 --- Comment #2 from bumkick...@yahoo.com --- (In reply to Wayne Davison from comment #1) What should we do instead to keep the same functionality? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. -- Please use

[Bug 14463] rsync 3.2.2 server protocol error

2020-08-11 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14463 Wayne Davison changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 14463] New: rsync 3.2.2 server protocol error

2020-08-11 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14463 Bug ID: 14463 Summary: rsync 3.2.2 server protocol error Product: rsync Version: 3.2.0 Hardware: All OS: FreeBSD Status: NEW Severity: normal

[Bug 11979] rsync -X fails without need

2020-07-27 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11979 --- Comment #3 from Wayne Davison --- Nope, that's the whole point. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. -- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list. To unsubscribe or

[Bug 5728] Change --min-size and --max-size to filter the file lists, like excludes

2020-07-27 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5728 Wayne Davison changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 5820] make rsync update symlinks/devices/specials atomically

2020-07-27 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5820 Wayne Davison changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 6741] 'deleting' messages show up in improper places

2020-07-27 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6741 Wayne Davison changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 6928] Warn the user to use --modify-window=1 --no-owner --no-group etc. on FAT partitions

2020-07-27 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6928 Wayne Davison changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 6821] Assertion failed so rsync crashes (path includes special char)

2020-07-27 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6821 Wayne Davison changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 3465] Option to delete unlisted files with --files-from

2020-07-27 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3465 --- Comment #8 from Wayne Davison --- Jeff: the command you mention already works fine, since --files-from is not involved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. -- Please use reply-all for most replies to

[Bug 10405] Feature request: Add support for pre/post cmds for the rsync client

2020-07-27 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10405 Wayne Davison changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Status|NEW

[Bug 11609] Incorrect (or at least dangerous) behaviour of --append-verify

2020-07-27 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11609 Wayne Davison changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 13660] State clearly in manpage that --append-verify is an edge-case

2020-07-27 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13660 --- Comment #2 from Jonas Eberle --- Thanks. Could you point to a commit where this has been changed please? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. -- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting

[Bug 8990] It might be nice to make --append-verify also transfer non-appending files

2020-07-27 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8990 Wayne Davison changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug 8856] --hard-links does not handle hard-linked symlinks correctly on FreeBSD

2020-07-27 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8856 Wayne Davison changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug 12153] Possible malfunctions of rsync when destination is on fat32 filesystem

2020-07-27 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12153 Wayne Davison changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME Status|NEW

[Bug 10675] rsyncing >2GB file onto fat32 partition should fail earlier

2020-07-27 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10675 Wayne Davison changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 12199] multiple link-dest dirs not working

2020-07-27 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12199 Wayne Davison changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 12915] --modify-window should default to 1 for fat filesystems

2020-07-27 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12915 Wayne Davison changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Status|NEW

[Bug 10092] Hang when remote dest's disk is full

2020-07-27 Thread just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla via rsync
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10092 Wayne Davison changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >