feedback on rsync-HEAD-20050125-1221GMT

[Wayne Davison]

On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 11:56:11AM -0500, Alberto Accomazzi wrote:
> I have been using the rsync snapshot from 1/25 for the last few days and 
> everything seems quite solid so far.  I include below a few nit-picks in 
> case you're looking for thing to tidy up.

Much appreciated!

> I'm also looking forward to hearing news about the --filter option.  I'm 
> thinking it is going to be very useful for backup purposes.  What I 
> would want to be able to do is, on a per-directory basis and with 
> recursion as an option, enable or disabled backing up of files based on 
> their file name, size, and timestamp (maybe mtime only would suffice). 
> Is this where you're going?

It already supports per-directory name rules, both inherited and not.
The idea of having per-directory size and time limits would not be hard
to add, and may be quite worthwhile.  For instance, assume 's' is for
size and 't' is for the modified time:

    # Don't transfer files 1 GB or larger
    s< 1g
    # Don't transfer files 100 KB or smaller
    s> 100k
    # Only transfer new files (modified in the last day)
    t> yesterday

Something like that, perhaps.

> - You should update the copyright stement to include 2005:

Fixed!

> - Compilation warnings when configured --with-included-popt with gcc 

Yeah, popt code does have a few warnings that I'm not too worried about
at the moment.

> - when running in daemon mode on fedora core 2, the daemon does not 
> start up properly unless you use the option --ipv4.

The code tries to deal with this case by forcing the IPv6 version of the
bind() to only bind the IPv6 port, not both IPv4 and IPv6:

#ifdef IPV6_V6ONLY
	if (resp->ai_family == AF_INET6) {
		if (setsockopt(s, IPPROTO_IPV6, IPV6_V6ONLY,
			       (char *)&one, sizeof one) < 0
		    && default_af_hint != AF_INET6) {
			close(s);
			continue;
		}
	}
#endif

Do you know if FC2 has IPV6_V6ONLY defined?

The code does output the warning you mentioned when it thinks that this
bug is in effect.  I could have the code ignore the failure of the
second listen() call when this happens, but that would make rsync only
listen on the IPv4 address, and I think that it is better to ask the
user to specifically ask us to do that (via -4) rather than to output a
warning and assume that is OK to start up with reduced binding.

..wayne..