From: Chris Devers Date: 14:31 on 29 Sep 2007 Subject: RsyncX RsyncX is a Mac GUI for rsync. Fair enough. It wants to be complete, so it bundles an rsync binary. Fair enough. But come on. Why litter the $PATH like this? $ /usr/local/bin/rsync --version | head -1 rsync version 2.6.0 protocol version 27 The system is already bundled with this: $ /usr/bin/rsync --version | head -1 rsync version 2.6.3 protocol version 28 No wonder half my usual rsync flags haven't been working since a coworker installed RsynxX... :-/ Then again, spite me for not using full paths. Fair enough.
From: Andy Armstrong Date: 14:36 on 29 Sep 2007 Subject: Re: RsyncX On 29 Sep 2007, at 14:31, Chris Devers wrote: > RsyncX is a Mac GUI for rsync. Fair enough. > > It wants to be complete, so it bundles an rsync binary. Fair enough. > > But come on. Why litter the $PATH like this? > > $ /usr/local/bin/rsync --version | head -1 > rsync version 2.6.0 protocol version 27 That's hateful alright. There's no reason for it not to have a private rsync binary in its bundle - which is what plenty of other programs do.
From: Mark Fowler Date: 15:31 on 29 Sep 2007 Subject: Re: RsyncX On 29 Sep 2007, at 14:31, Chris Devers wrote: > The system is already bundled with this: > > $ /usr/bin/rsync --version | head -1 > rsync version 2.6.3 protocol version 28 I know it's bad taste to complain about other's hate, but this is because rsyncx is quite old now. The version of rsync that *used* to ship with Mac OS X didn't have the ability to sync mac meta-info, so rsyncX shipped it's own binary that did. This makes it no less hateful to silently slap it into the path than keeping it in the app bundle though. That will break things (as shown) when the system starts shipping a new binary too... Mark.
From: Benjamin Reed Date: 16:13 on 30 Sep 2007 Subject: Re: RsyncX -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mark Fowler wrote: > > On 29 Sep 2007, at 14:31, Chris Devers wrote: > >> The system is already bundled with this: >> >> $ /usr/bin/rsync --version | head -1 >> rsync version 2.6.3 protocol version 28 > > I know it's bad taste to complain about other's hate, but this is > because rsyncx is quite old now. The version of rsync that *used* to > ship with Mac OS X didn't have the ability to sync mac meta-info, so > rsyncX shipped it's own binary that did. > > This makes it no less hateful to silently slap it into the path than > keeping it in the app bundle though. That will break things (as shown) > when the system starts shipping a new binary too... If I've learned anything from working on Fink, it's that /usr/local should be considered harmful. :) Every 3rd-party piece of crap assumes it's OK to install in there, and it always confuses people who expect other behaviors from system-supplied software. Not to mention it's in gcc's default compiler path, and can't be removed from it. Hey, you installed your own special super-spiffy vectorizing version of GCC in /usr/local? OH! You get symbol errors if you try to use Apple's GCC in many common situations. Sorry about that. - -- Benjamin Reed a.k.a. Ranger Rick Fink, KDE, and Mac OS X development http://www.racoonfink.com/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFG/70zUu+jZtP2Zf4RAj9CAJ9S/TwGLMaGFv9PddNCfM7fCaNGlACfSV6V hCFMyfP9a2/TcVTy1WBRKzU= =uwB0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: Peter da Silva Date: 16:44 on 30 Sep 2007 Subject: Re: RsyncX Nod. /usr/local is for standard stuff that doesn't come with the system. If you're installing non-standard stuff, install it in /some/other/ prefix. Except on Linux, where there is no "stuff that comes with the system" and /usr is where you put /usr/local stuff, apparently. Then /usr/ local gets the non-standard stuff. That's an interesting idea, but hateful to me.
From: Earle Martin Date: 11:22 on 01 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: RsyncX On 30/09/2007, Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > /usr/local is for standard stuff that doesn't come with the system. > > If you're installing non-standard stuff, install it in /some/other/ > prefix. On this Mac OS X malarkey it's /opt/local, apparently. Even though there is a /usr/local. Which just strikes me as peculiar to say the least. Then again, I've only been using Linux for seven years, not *BSD or the other extended relatives, so maybe this is normal in those parts, much in the same way that you can marry your sister in some distant tribes.
From: Patrick Quinn-Graham Date: 11:42 on 01 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: RsyncX On 1-Oct-07, at 11:22 AM, Earle Martin wrote: > On 30/09/2007, Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: >> /usr/local is for standard stuff that doesn't come with the system. > > On this Mac OS X malarkey it's /opt/local, apparently. Even though > there is a /usr/local. Which just strikes me as peculiar to say the > least. The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard[1] says: > /opt : Add-on application software packages > > Purpose > > /opt is reserved for the installation of add-on application > software packages. > > A package to be installed in /opt must locate its static files in a > separate /opt/<package> or /opt/<provider> directory tree, where > <package> is a name that describes the software package and > <provider> is the provider's LANANA registered name. > > and > /usr/local : Local hierarchy > > Purpose > > The /usr/local hierarchy is for use by the system administrator > when installing software locally. It needs to be safe from being > overwritten when the system software is updated. It may be used for > programs and data that are shareable amongst a group of hosts, but > not found in /usr. > > Locally installed software must be placed within /usr/local rather > than /usr unless it is being installed to replace or upgrade > software in /usr. [27] > > Which is how I've seen things used on OS X. MacPorts, for example, installs in /opt/local. Personally I think it should be /opt/ports, to satisfy the <package> or <provider> requirements, but oh well. The cisco vpn installs stuff in /opt as well. /usr/local is where things I install go (ie. from source) [1]: http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html, see also http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard
From: Phil Pennock Date: 11:53 on 01 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: RsyncX On 2007-10-01 at 11:22 +0100, Earle Martin wrote: > On this Mac OS X malarkey it's /opt/local, apparently. Even though AFAIK /opt/local/ is a MacOS-ism. /opt/pkgname is something Solaris, inter alia, uses and I think comes from one of those standards committees that issues vague edicts that people sometimes listen to and start to pay attention to when nagged enough by Marketing wanting to add another checkbox. > there is a /usr/local. Which just strikes me as peculiar to say the > least. Then again, I've only been using Linux for seven years, not > *BSD or the other extended relatives, so maybe this is normal in those > parts, much in the same way that you can marry your sister in some > distant tribes. *BSD uses /usr/local/. The weirdest cuckoos when it comes to dicking with Unix are not working for Apple. They're the folks contributing to the, uhm, "plethora" of Linux distributions. So any accusations of sororial matrimony bespeak more of the family of the person desperately casting aspersions elsewhere. -Phil
From: Earle Martin Date: 14:31 on 01 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: RsyncX On 01/10/2007, Phil Pennock <phil.pennock@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > On 2007-10-01 at 11:22 +0100, Earle Martin wrote: > > *BSD or the other extended relatives, so maybe this is normal in those > > parts, much in the same way that you can marry your sister in some > > distant tribes. > > *BSD uses /usr/local/. I could have phrased that better (I wrote it on a Monday morning, caffeine deficit should be assumed). I meant /opt/local is weird, not /usr/local/. > So any accusations of sororial matrimony bespeak > more of the family of the person desperately casting aspersions > elsewhere. Ooh get her. Linux family tree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carlos_segundo80.png The task of determining which distribution is Charles II is left to the reader.
From: Phil Pennock Date: 21:18 on 01 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: RsyncX On 2007-10-01 at 14:31 +0100, Earle Martin wrote: > On 01/10/2007, Phil Pennock <phil.pennock@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > > On 2007-10-01 at 11:22 +0100, Earle Martin wrote: > > > *BSD or the other extended relatives, so maybe this is normal in those > > > parts, much in the same way that you can marry your sister in some > > > distant tribes. > > > > *BSD uses /usr/local/. > > I could have phrased that better (I wrote it on a Monday morning, > caffeine deficit should be assumed). I meant /opt/local is weird, not > /usr/local/. I wrote it on Sunday night when I should have been in bed, thus a certain lack of clarity: *BSD use /usr/local/, so *BSD are not weird. -Phil
From: Peter da Silva Date: 13:59 on 01 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: RsyncX On 01-Oct-2007, at 05:22, Earle Martin wrote: > On this Mac OS X malarkey it's /opt/local, apparently. That's not OS X, that's Darwinports. My guess is they're copying Solaris.
From: David Cantrell Date: 15:56 on 01 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: RsyncX On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 03:31:03PM +0100, Mark Fowler wrote: > I know it's bad taste to complain about other's hate, but this is > because rsyncx is quite old now. The version of rsync that *used* to > ship with Mac OS X didn't have the ability to sync mac meta-info, so > rsyncX shipped it's own binary that did. Apparently, the version that ships with it now still doesn't. It's unreliable as hell, according to people on the rsnapshot-discuss list. Being unreliable is even worse than just not supporting it IMO.
From: Peter da Silva Date: 16:37 on 01 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: RsyncX On 01-Oct-2007, at 09:56, David Cantrell wrote: > Apparently, the version that ships with it now still doesn't. Neither does rsyncx. Been there, done that, got the "reinstall-from-scratch, rsyncx-hosed- my-metadata" blues. Filesystem metadata is hateful. Software that claims to maintain it but turfs it instead is hateful.
Generated at 10:26 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi
