[path] & module options with SSH
dwd at bell-labs.com
Thu Feb 7 09:09:05 EST 2002
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 02:57:29PM -0500, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
> Dave Dykstra wrote:
> > JD Paul's patch which I previously referred to will give you what
> > you want.
> So, this patch would apply only when the :: is in use correct? That's what I
> > ":" syntax uses rsh (or ssh if you use -e ssh) to run another copy of the
> > rsync program on the remote side. "::" syntax skips that completely,
> > ignores -e, and instead connects to a daemon separately started to listen
> > on port 873 on the remote host. In the future, when JD Paul's patch is
> > accepted, the expectation will be that if you use "::" and "-e ssh"
> > together it will still use ssh to connect but it will run rsync -daemon
> > interactively so it can honor your rsyncd.conf.
> > Does that make it clear?
> Now I re-read the documents a few more times and I did some more test. I
> just got the light I guess! (:> I was running a daemon on my server or
> source and it wasn't needed with the : syntax I used! Duh!! (:<
> Here again correct me if I am wrong, but the : as explain in the DOC ( but I
> didn't get it the first time, and the second and...) is use when your SSH
> remote shell will start a rsync process on the remote server and YOU DO NOT
> NEED a --daemon running there, but at the moment, without JD Paul's patch,
> the rsyncd.conf file is ignore.
> The :: will use the --daemon on the remote server and should accept the
> rsyncd.conf correctly with SSH if JD Paul's patch is apply. I think I am
> clear on that as well, right?
Yes. With JD Paul's patch, the remote side will not be listening on port 873
but it will start up a new instance of rsync --daemon under ssh and honor
> At the moment if SSH is in use, regardless if you use : or ::, the
> rsync.conf is not use without JD Paul's patch apply, so there is no way to
> limit access to part of the file system under SSH other then changing the
> right on the user on the remote server?
Right. If you use :: now, you are not using SSH.
> Many thanks for your help and answer! It put some light for me on this.
> Last part if I may abuse of your generosity so far. In the 2.5.2, there is
> the use of malloc.h that wasn't there n the 2.5.1 and will make my compiler
> complain and provide me plenty of warning.
2.5.2 added the gcc -Wall option but hasn't yet tried to fix many of the
warnings. I expect those to come along some time in the future.
> Any patch to use the more resent
> stdlib.h instead or am I crazy to ask?
rsync.h is already including stdlib.h if it exists, so that must not be the
More information about the rsync