Sounds like the files are totally different... silly question: is gzip
patched with the rsyncable flag?Can you use a hex compare tool to confirm
that most of the files are the same?
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Jan Alphenaar wrote:
>
> Julian,
>
Case A:Rsync still has to start from the beginning, but it uses the partial
file as a basis file, so transfer of the first part should be much faster
than transferring from scratch. Rsync will NOT do what you are thinking and
use the same file and just continue building on it, but it will start a n
For the same reason I have a compiling version of 1.06 that has been patched
with most of the changes between 1.06 and 1.12... In this way I have a
'portable' version with more or less the latest bug fixes and features...
Email me if you're interested.
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Piotr Marty
rsa:1536 -x509 -keyout backup.key -out
> backup.crt
>
> Unfortunately when I do this I'm getting below error:
>
> Unable to load config info from /usr/local/ssl/openssl.cnf
>
> The problem is that this config file is not available in the rsyncrypto
> package (I used ver 1.
artyniuk wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:03, Julian Pace Ross <
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>>Don't think it's a good idea... there should just be one version
>>to
> Zax
>
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:51, Julian Pace Ross > wrote:
>
>> For the same reason I have a compiling version of 1.06 that has been
>> patched with most of the changes between 1.06 and 1.12... In this way I have
>> a 'portable' version with
l", I have what is essentially version 1.11 compiling with
VS8.
2008/6/27 Julian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Yep, the problem seems to be with something called WinSxS (side by side)
> that's handled by the msi. (it looks horrible).
>
> Any chance of making available the c
setup.
Thanks
Julian
2008/6/26 Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Julian wrote:
>
>> Hi Shachar.. hope I'm not disturbing your vacation... if so, you may
>> ignore this until you return, as it is not really urgent!
>>
> Allow me to reassure you that
t; program to run?
Apologies if this has been implied from the previous posts about upgrading
to the new Visual Studio etc...
Thanks
Julian
2008/6/25 Julian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Thanks Shachar.
>
> 2008/6/24 Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Hi all,
>>
>&
Thanks Shachar.
2008/6/24 Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi all,
>
> Version 1.11 of your favorite rsync friendly encryption program (it is,
> isn't it?) has just been released. Many many many new stuff, addressing
> almost all of the open issues recently raised.
>
> Compilation should no
ut an error, but
continue processing the files just the same.
I know you were planning to work on this, so just purely out of curiosity...
when could we expect the next release of version 1 to be available more or
less?
Best regards
Julian
2008/6/11 Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Thanks Shachar.
I especially look forward to:
>> At this point, there is just one known bug open for version 1 - make
>> sure rsyncrypto does not abort entirely at the first sign of trouble.
Cheers
Julian
2008/5/23 Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi all,
>
>
grade?
2008/5/10 Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Julian wrote:
>
>> Thanks for 1.07.
>> The latest gzip version is 1.3.12, and seems to come with rsyncable patch
>> as standard.
>>
> Does it???
>
>> Can I assume it's safe to just go ahead
Thanks for 1.07.
The latest gzip version is 1.3.12, and seems to come with rsyncable patch as
standard.
Can I assume it's safe to just go ahead and use this with rsyncrypto?
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(
I just wanted a quick code fix to get me out of a corner and to be honest i
I feel more comfortable knowing that this has now been properly dealt with
by Shachar (thanks). In any case, glad to help.
2008/5/7 Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> David V. wrote:
>
> > And Juli
>
> For one thing, rsync uses cygwin while rsyncrypto uses the Win32 API
> directly. You really need to find out what win32 APIs are necessary.
It seems the problem lies within FindFirstFile. From msdn:
"If the string ends with a wildcard, period (.), or directory name, the user
must have access
directories?
Regards
Julian
-
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://s
brol* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I will try tomorrow to upgrade to 1.06 and see if the error is
> > still there.
> >
> >
> > "I am a bit out of touch with rsyn
he more verbose "directory not empty" error reported by
renaud on linux)
On 20/03/2008, Julian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I noticed this on windows too some time back.
> If a directory tree, three levels deep, is deleted on the source (after it
> would have been encrypt
ing a small c program just to do the
parse the directories and perform any deletions before actually running
rsyncrypto. But that was before I acquired Visual Studio, so I guess I can
try look into it now.
Julian
On 20/03/2008, Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> re
revious
"patch" file. Obviously this problem does not exist on linux, but the
insertion remains the same.
Cheers
Julian
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 200
>
>
> One of the many things I would like to do for version 2 is to find a way
> to parallelize more, so that quad core and such can be used. I'm still
> not exactly sure how is the best way to do that.
I might be wrong and it is probably not that simple (and I can't really
check right now), but
>
> You just use the tortoise SVN function that does it. Never mind, I need
> to investigate why mkdir c:\ and mkdir x:\ behave differently. Is one a
> network drive, by any chance?
No, no network drives:
for example if e: is a separate drive/partition: (Tested this on different
machines, all XP)
you notice any difference.
Maybe Shachar has any idea?
On 18/03/2008, David V. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Julian is it normal that your exe is much bigger than the non modified
> rsyncrypto ?
> Yours is 304 Ko and the non modified one is 184 Ko.
>
> David V.
>
>
I hope Sachar can reproduce the problem and then fix it.
> >
> > David V.
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Julian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Yep, that's what's happening exactly.
> > > I tried with vari
led exe before Shachar releases the next version, I
could send it to you.
Cheers
Julian
On 14/03/2008, David V. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I hope Sachar can reproduce the problem and then fix it.
>
> David V.
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Julian <[EMAIL PROTECTED
Yep, that's what's happening exactly.
I tried with various versions from 0.19 through 1.06, with exactly the same
result.
On 13/03/2008, David V. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sachar and Julian,
>
> This seems to be related to the following thread :
>
>
ons etc... but to no
avail. It seems that any letter other than "C:" is rejected.
At this point it would be really important for me to be able to backup to an
external drive.
Any clue why this may be happenning?
Best regards
Julian
---
28 matches
Mail list logo
