Re: bug in permissions on symlinks

2001-12-07 Thread Niels Andersen
| Does anybody run rsync on Apollo? Hell, they run it on Windoze :-( I know what I'd rather use. Huh? In stead of Windows, or in stead of rsync? :) There's a lot of Windows-users out there, and I think rsync is a great tool on Windows-systems too. :) No OS-wars here, just wanted to know if

Re: move rsync development tree to BitKeeper?

2001-12-07 Thread Martin Pool
Incidentally, here's an interesting BitKeeper demostration/tutorial: http://www.bitkeeper.com/demo/ -- Martin

Re: bug in permissions on symlinks

2001-12-07 Thread Cameron Simpson
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 10:56:17AM +0100, Niels Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | Does anybody run rsync on Apollo? | Hell, they run it on Windoze :-( I know what I'd rather use. | Huh? In stead of Windows, or in stead of rsync? :) | | There's a lot of Windows-users out there, and I think

Re: bug in permissions on symlinks

2001-12-07 Thread Martin Pool
On 7 Dec 2001, Cameron Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please don't take this path - ownerships on symlinks are a pretty meaningless concept Right. For just this reason I just changed the regression test to use an included tiny ls, rather than the system's ls, because on some systems the

Re: Cosmetic code cleanup?

2001-12-07 Thread Martin Pool
On 6 Dec 2001, Jos Backus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's a list of cosmetic changes I'd be willing to make to the code in order to make it more consistent, which stylisticly it currently is not. - separate function definitions by 2 newlines - put spaces after commas in arg lists - put

Re: bug in permissions on symlinks

2001-12-07 Thread Dave Dykstra
On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 12:05:44AM +1100, Martin Pool wrote: On 7 Dec 2001, Cameron Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please don't take this path - ownerships on symlinks are a pretty meaningless concept ... Why _not_ take the conservation approach unless somebody reports a problem

Re: protocol error?

2001-12-07 Thread Dave Dykstra
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 12:02:35PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I recently upgraded one of my servers to 2.5.0. Since then, I've been getting error messages like following between 2.5.0 and 2.4.6 servers. bit length overflow code 3 bits 7-6 code 10 bits 5-6 Does

Re: bug in permissions on symlinks

2001-12-07 Thread tim . conway
The only circumstance where i could see symlink ownership being an issue would be in the case where one might need to be changed, on those systems which support that. Most i've seen delete and recreate the link, so if the person needing to own the link has write, with no sticky bit, on the

using uid instead of USER or LOGNAME

2001-12-07 Thread Holstein, Brian
Are there any known patches to use a users effective uid rather than the environment variables USER or LOGNAME with an rsync server. Any suggestions would be appreciated. _Brian Brian Holstein Sysadmin SLK Hull derivatives

RE: move rsync development tree to BitKeeper?

2001-12-07 Thread David Bolen
You can find a lot more information about the differences here: http://bitkeeper.com/4.1.1.html BitKeeper is not strictly Open Source, but arguably good enough. I guess arguably is if you don't mind having all your metadata logged to an open logging server? The proposed plan is to