dir list behavior differences?

[Don Fike]

The clients that aren't doing a directory listing are;

rsync version 2.3.1  protocol version 20
&&
rsync version 2.2.1  protocol version 19

The client that works as desired and expected 
is;

rsync version 2.4.6  protocol version 24

I tried adding a trailing / but that didn't
encourage the older versions to do a directory
listing.  Instead I got the response below;

skipping directory /
client: nothing to do

Adding a -r did, but the recursion
returns too much data to be useful.  
I can upgrade the older versions here but my
concern and desire is to support those outside
my department using older clients.  
I am getting the impression that those using
older clients are accustomed to not seeing
a directory listing.  If this is true than
I guess I am content with my setup.  Is there
is another way I can encourage a directory
listing, maybe on the server side.

Thanks,

Don
fike at cs.utk.edu





-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Dykstra [mailto:dwd at bell-labs.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 5:47 PM
To: Don Fike
Cc: rsync at lists.samba.org
Subject: Re: dir list behavior differences?


On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:49:27PM -0500, Don Fike wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I have set up an anonymous rsync server
> that seems to work as expected.  However
> when I try to access the server from several
> other unix boxes using rsync with a command 
> like this;
> 
> rsync netlib3.cs.utk.edu::netlib/
> 
> I get the motd and then a line that states
> 
> client: nothing to do
> 
> Now I would expect this to give me a directory
> listing.  I do get the directory listing as
> expected when doing the command from the local
> box.  I have tried other servers listed here;
> 
> http://sunsite.dk/info/guides/rsync/rsync-mirroring03.html
> 
> and I get the same results, when using some of my
> clients I just get the motd and the client: nothing
> to do error.
> 
> Is this an issue with backwards compatibility between
> new server and older client communications?
> Is there a way to get the listings as expected for
> all clients?


You don't mention the version numbers, but I believe the issue is yes it is
a matter of client version.  Can you not upgrade the older clients?

- Dave Dykstra