[Bug 8188] Mechanism for taking an rsync server down for maintenance

2011-06-01 Thread samba-bugs
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8188 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pollock 2011-06-02 04:36:12 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) That's very cute, but not quite what I had in mind. I just attached a proof of concept patch that I surprised myself by being able to hack together the other

[Bug 8188] Mechanism for taking an rsync server down for maintenance

2011-06-01 Thread samba-bugs
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8188 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pollock 2011-06-02 04:34:54 UTC --- Created attachment 6513 --> https://bugzilla.samba.org/attachment.cgi?id=6513 Proof of concept patch This is purely a proof of concept patch and not production-grade. -- Configure

Re: [Bug 8188] Mechanism for taking an rsync server down for maintenance

2011-06-01 Thread Brian K. White
On 6/1/2011 3:26 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote: On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 14:57 -0400, Brian K. White wrote: I like the built-in idea as I don't happen to use rsync via inetd/xinetd or any other on-demand starter. It's not an actual problem for me, today, but that's no excuse to avoid doing the right th

Re: [Bug 8188] Mechanism for taking an rsync server down for maintenance

2011-06-01 Thread Matt McCutchen
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 14:57 -0400, Brian K. White wrote: > I like the built-in idea as I don't happen to use rsync via inetd/xinetd > or any other on-demand starter. > > It's not an actual problem for me, today, but that's no excuse to avoid > doing the right thing once you recognize it. And "t

Re: [Bug 8188] Mechanism for taking an rsync server down for maintenance

2011-06-01 Thread Brian K. White
I like the built-in idea as I don't happen to use rsync via inetd/xinetd or any other on-demand starter. It's not an actual problem for me, today, but that's no excuse to avoid doing the right thing once you recognize it. -- bkw On 5/31/2011 1:15 AM, samba-b...@samba.org wrote: https://bugz

[Bug 8201] rsync 3.0.8 destroys SELinux security context of symbolic links

2011-06-01 Thread samba-bugs
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8201 Frederick Grose changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fgr...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Fred

[Bug 8201] New: rsync 3.0.8 destroys SELinux security context of symbolic links

2011-06-01 Thread samba-bugs
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8201 Summary: rsync 3.0.8 destroys SELinux security context of symbolic links Product: rsync Version: 3.0.8 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: no

Re: [Bug 8198] New: rsync does not set TZ variable after chroot(), which confuses logging timestamps

2011-06-01 Thread Michael Tokarev
01.06.2011 14:06, samba-b...@samba.org пишет: > https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8198 > >Summary: rsync does not set TZ variable after chroot(), which > confuses logging timestamps >Product: rsync >Version: 3.1.0 > Platfor

[Bug 8198] rsync does not set TZ variable after chroot(), which confuses logging timestamps

2011-06-01 Thread samba-bugs
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8198 --- Comment #1 from Jan Kaluza 2011-06-01 10:07:01 UTC --- Created attachment 6508 --> https://bugzilla.samba.org/attachment.cgi?id=6508 patch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.samba.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving thi

[Bug 8198] New: rsync does not set TZ variable after chroot(), which confuses logging timestamps

2011-06-01 Thread samba-bugs
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8198 Summary: rsync does not set TZ variable after chroot(), which confuses logging timestamps Product: rsync Version: 3.1.0 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW

[Bug 6183] rsync error file too large (27)

2011-06-01 Thread samba-bugs
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6183 --- Comment #5 from Dal 2011-06-01 07:58:01 UTC --- The issue happens intermittently. Most of the time large files are sync'd fine. I have run rsync on the failed file several times now and it hasn't failed. Is there any debugging I can put in place