Re: Trouble getting off the ground with rsync

From: P.T. Breuer (ptb_at_oboe.it.uc3m.es)
Date: 09/07/04 

Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 20:48:26 GMT

Alexander Skwar <from@alexander.skwar.name> wrote:
> P.T. Breuer wrote:
> > Alexander Skwar <from@alexander.skwar.name> wrote:
> >>P.T. Breuer wrote:
> >>>Paul Black <nospam@nospam.saturnine.org.uk> wrote:
> >>>>P.T. Breuer wrote:
> >>>>>Not reading the manual, apparently!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>SYNOPSIS
> >>>>> rsync [options] [user@]host:path path
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OR
> >>>>>
> >>>>> rsync [options] path [user@]host:path
> >>>>
> >>>>It doesn't pay to be a condescending smartarse when _you_ get things wrong:
> >>>I don't. I pasted the man page. In its entirety, may I add, up to the
> >>>DESCRIPTION section.
> >>
> >>No, you did not. You pasted 6 lines, starting with "SYNOPSIS"
> >>and ending with "path [user@]host:path".
> >
> >
> > That's " In its entirety, may I add, up to the DESCRIPTION section".,
> > So it appears you are lying.
>
> How am I lying?

You lied when you said "No, you did not". I did (paste the manpage. In
its entirety .. up to the DESCRIPTION section". Ergo, you lied.

> I do believe that you pasted some 6 lines from
> some man page.

There you are then.

> That man page is, as you're so eager to underline,
> not the original, complete version of the man page.

It is the original version, and it is complete. Whether it is the same
as yours is another question! But I wish you would stop confusing
yourself by referring to "the man page". If you recall, I asked him
particularly where he got his information from, and I did so for a
reason, which by now should at last be sinking into your skull. If you
are capable of putting two and two together, that is, and of recalling
that I know the syntax for talking to a rsync server (well, urrm,
approximately, at least) and the syntax for using rsync without one,
and that I want him to tell me where he got his "stuff" from.

> >>If that's all you have
> >>as the man page, then it's your fault being a smartarse for not
> >>verifying that your man page is unbroken.
> >
> > My man page is just fine, thanks.
>
> Okay, obviously I'm unable to understand what you write.

That is the case.

> In my
> book, something's called "unbroken", if it is complete and in
> the way the producer shipped something.

It is complete, (in the sense that) it is the way the producer shipped it.
Do you want me to give you the version number and package md5sums? I've
been manfully resisting doing so.

> Further, it seems that
> you've got some abnormal definition of "unbroken".

I don't believe that we have touched on my idea of unbroken at all - the
only reference to the word that I see is yours. While I might be
interested in your semantics, I don't believe there is as yet any
substantive dispute over the term.

Perhaps you'd be happier asking me for my semantics of "stuff".

> Could you
> please define it, so that it is (theoretically) possible to
> barely understand you?

"unbroken" = "not broken" = "working properly" = "without pain in the
diodes down the left side".

Better?

> > Actually using a server to copy OUT to anonymous clients is something I
> > hadn't considered. Why would they do that instead of using ftp or some
> > more standard and tried protocol? What's the point in serving via
> > rsync? Oh - is it for updates, and the rolling differential copy? Yes.
> > It makes sense.
>
> See.

It makes sense - it's so crazy it might even be useful. But it remains
crazy.

> > Well, that too! (I recall that I missed a / at the end too when copying
> > and changing his line).
>
> So, you're unable to copy'n'paste from a message,

Apparently so. I blame the wrap-around. It was a long line!

You really don't seem to understand. I'll spell it out a bit more for
you - the line posted was not sensical and what he meant to do is not
completely clear to me (I don't really know if he meant to use server
syntax or if he has a server for real or just thinks he does, or if he
doesn't know the difference between a server and the normal peer, and
I don't know where he got the idea from that he ought to be writing that
line), but it is certainly not what the docs say. I want HIM to look
at HIS manual. I said here is my manual and it says nothing of the kind.
But I hope that the example will challenge him to go check his manual and
check HIS sources of information.

You can go and pipe down - I don't care what your sources say, and
neither does he, because what is relevant to him is HIS documentation.

Now, I grant you I might go and guess what he means by "the latest" and
go compile it and check it out, but I've compiled rsync plenty of times
and there are plenty of ways to compile it. He can do the work - I
merely point at what he wants to look at.

> you've got some
> strange copy of a "man page" and you don't read pasted error messages.

It's a perfectly good man page. There's nothing strange about it. It
says at the bottom:

CREDITS
       rsync was written by Andrew Tridgell and Paul Mackerras.
       They may be contacted via email at
       Andrew.Tridgell@anu.edu.au and Paul.Macker?
       ras@cs.anu.edu.au

       rsync is distributed under the GNU public license. See the
       file COPYING for details.

rsync 3/7/1996 7

RSYNC(1) rsync RSYNC(1)

       The primary ftp site for rsync is
       ftp://samba.anu.edu.au/pub/rsync.

       We would be delighted to hear from you if you like this
       program.

       This program uses the zlib compression library written by
       Jean-loup Gailly and Mark Adler.

THANKS
       Thanks to Richard Brent, Brendan Mackay, Bill Waite,
       Stephen Rothwell and David Bell for helpful suggestions
       and testing of rsync. I've proabably missed some people,
       my apologies if I have.

> Instead, you spew at people.

You probably want me to show you a manpage that starts like this:

  rsync(1) rsync(1)

NAME
       rsync - faster, flexible replacement for rcp

SYNOPSIS
       rsync [OPTION]... SRC [SRC]... [USER@]HOST:DEST

       rsync [OPTION]... [USER@]HOST:SRC DEST

       rsync [OPTION]... SRC [SRC]... DEST

       rsync [OPTION]... [USER@]HOST::SRC [DEST]

       rsync [OPTION]... SRC [SRC]... [USER@]HOST::DEST

       rsync [OPTION]... rsync://[USER@]HOST[:PORT]/SRC [DEST]

DESCRIPTION

I have one like that too!

>
> >>>>>Where do you get your stuff from?
> >>>
> >>>>Where do you get yours?
> >>>
> >>>The manual page for rsync.
> >>
> >>No, you don't.
> >
> > Yes I do.
>

It "is" the official one.

I hope you are finally beginning to focus in on my question.

> >>>Now, let's repeat my question.
> >>>
> >>> Where do you get your stuff from?
> >>
> >>The official manual page.
> >
> > Oh, I see. And what may the "official" man page be, and is that the one
>
> Yeah, that's a hard one - what might be the official source
> for something? Maybe the "producer?

Or the packager? And which version?

> > he has? (Mine is quite official too, I assure you!).
>
> I don't know about his manpage, but yours is quite obviously tampered

It isn't.

> with, as it's lacking information.

No, yours has been tampered with, as it has had information added! ;)

> I'd say it's not official, despite
> your ignorance.

Well, I'd say yours is not official, thanks to your ignorance. But then
I don't care.

Peter

Relevant Pages