<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
        <?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="http://www.miek.nl/blog/"?>
<rss version="2.0"
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
 xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
>
<channel>
<title>Filed under: bugs | Miek</title>
<atom:link href="http://www.miek.nl/blog/archives/bugs/index-rss.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
<link>http://www.miek.nl/blog</link>
<description>Thoughts on (technical) stuff</description>
<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
<dc:creator>Miek Gieben</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-02-04T04:15:11+01:00</dc:date>
<admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://nanoblogger.sourceforge.net" />

<item>
<link>http://www.miek.nl/blog/archives/2009/05/31/bsa/index.html</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.miek.nl/blog/archives/2009/05/31/bsa/index.html</guid>
<title>BSA</title>
<dc:date>2009-05-31T10:55:34+01:00</dc:date>
<dc:creator>Miek Gieben</dc:creator>
<dc:subject> bugs</dc:subject>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The <a href="http://www.bsa.org">BSA</a> wants companies to fill out a list
with all machines they have and the software it runs. For each PC you 
must provide a list of the Windows version and <em>every</em> program
and their versions (and keys).</p>

<p>Suppose I had Windows at home (which <em>sadly</em> I do, it came with the 
EeeBox I bought). I think the list would look something like this:</p>

<ul>
<li>Windows XP (version: <code>yyyy</code>, key: <code>xxxx</code>)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.viruslist.com/en/viruses/encyclopedia?virusid=21782865Trojan-Dropper.Win32.Agent.albv">Trojan-Dropper.Win32.Agent.albv</a></li>
<li><a href="http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=37020&amp;name=Win32/Mimail">Mimail</a></li>
<li>...</li>
</ul>

<p>Or I'm I going about it the wrong way?</p>]]></description>

</item>
<item>
<link>http://www.miek.nl/blog/archives/2009/05/01/rdup-up_bug/index.html</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.miek.nl/blog/archives/2009/05/01/rdup-up_bug/index.html</guid>
<title>rdup-up bug</title>
<dc:date>2009-05-01T20:54:48+01:00</dc:date>
<dc:creator>Miek Gieben</dc:creator>
<dc:subject> rdup, bugs</dc:subject>
<description><![CDATA[<p>While preparing for the 1.0.0 release for rdup I found a bug in
<code>rdup-up</code>: it does not <code>chown()</code> the files it creates.</p>

<p>Needless to say, this is fixed in the latest 
<a href="http://www.miek.nl/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=rdup.git;a=commit;h=80c377c7ad0af514949328daf3d3e262e9b73adb">git version</a>.</p>

<p>I now want to convert my shell test suite kludge to something people can
run a their computer, so that they can send me the output of a <code>make
test</code>.</p>]]></description>

</item>
<item>
<link>http://www.miek.nl/blog/archives/2009/04/19/windows_7/index.html</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.miek.nl/blog/archives/2009/04/19/windows_7/index.html</guid>
<title>Windows 7?</title>
<dc:date>2009-04-19T09:38:06+01:00</dc:date>
<dc:creator>Miek Gieben</dc:creator>
<dc:subject> bugs</dc:subject>
<description><![CDATA[<p>So Windows Vista
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Windows_Vista">development</a>
was <em>started</em> in 2002 and released it as "stable" at the end of 2006.
And then it still didn't give us what Microsoft had promised, like</p>

<ul>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinFS">WinFS</a></li>
<li>Avalon, trimmed down to Aero?</li>
</ul>

<p>Soon (maybe after a year) they started with the development of Windows 7. Now
I read on <a href="http://www.slashdot.org">slashdot</a> that a RC1 release is
scheduled RSN.</p>

<p>So developing a entire new OS from scratch(?) takes about 4 years in
Redmond and now they want <em>you</em> to believe Windows 7 is a completely new
OS and will be better than Vista -- even though development took only a
year? </p>

<p>If you believe everything Microsoft says you can always use the
following quote, which I have been hearing from people use Microsoft
software (even in the DOS era) for years now.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Yes, I know this version sucks, but the <strong>next</strong> version
that comes out will be much better!</p>
</blockquote>]]></description>

</item>
<item>
<link>http://www.miek.nl/blog/archives/2009/04/16/rdup_-c_output_bug/index.html</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.miek.nl/blog/archives/2009/04/16/rdup_-c_output_bug/index.html</guid>
<title>rdup -c output bug</title>
<dc:date>2009-04-16T10:24:30+01:00</dc:date>
<dc:creator>Miek Gieben</dc:creator>
<dc:subject> rdup, bugs</dc:subject>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Piping <code>rdup -c</code> output right into <code>rdup-up</code></p>

<pre><code>rdup -c /dev/null ~/bin | ./rdup-up -t /vol/backup
</code></pre>

<p>fails with the following error:</p>

<pre><code>rdup-up: First character should '-' or '+', `01BLOCK00000' at line: 8
</code></pre>

<p>This was reported to me by Jared Henley. It is fixed with this 
<a href="http://www.miek.nl/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=rdup.git;a=commit;h=522486de62ffae454b98c6abaae08c29a4b1c768">commit</a></p>

<p>You can work around it with, by putting <code>rdup-tr</code> in the pipeline, like
so:</p>

<pre><code>rdup /dev/null ~/bin | rdup-tr | ./rdup-up -t /vol/backup
</code></pre>

<p>Note: <code>rdup</code> is called <em>without</em> the -c flag!</p>

<p>I wanted to release a new version of rdup anyhow, so expect a 0.9.1
release soonish.</p>]]></description>

</item>
<item>
<link>http://www.miek.nl/blog/archives/2009/02/04/rdup_0_7_0_compile_on_solaris/index.html</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.miek.nl/blog/archives/2009/02/04/rdup_0_7_0_compile_on_solaris/index.html</guid>
<title>rdup 0.7.0 compile on Solaris</title>
<dc:date>2009-02-04T15:02:54+01:00</dc:date>
<dc:creator>Miek Gieben</dc:creator>
<dc:subject> rdup, bugs</dc:subject>
<description><![CDATA[<p>rdup 0.7.0 did not compile on Solaris (as I never tested this), but it
turns out that this can be fixed with some simple tweaks. </p>

<p>These fixes have just (5 minutes ago) been committed to subversion. So
if you check out the latest <code>trunk</code> it <em>should</em> compile on Solaris.</p>

<p>To make it compile I had to uncomment some <code>GNU_GETTEXT_</code> macros in
<code>configure.ac</code>, but I not really using them anyway. </p>

<p>There was also some nagging about <code>major()</code> and <code>minor()</code> which turned out to
be a missing <code>#include &lt;sys/sysmacros.h&gt;</code>.</p>]]></description>

</item>
<item>
<link>http://www.miek.nl/blog/archives/2009/01/30/rdup_0_6_6_bugs/index.html</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.miek.nl/blog/archives/2009/01/30/rdup_0_6_6_bugs/index.html</guid>
<title>rdup 0.6.6 bugs</title>
<dc:date>2009-01-30T15:51:18+01:00</dc:date>
<dc:creator>Miek Gieben</dc:creator>
<dc:subject> rdup, bugs</dc:subject>
<description><![CDATA[<p>As I'm without a bug database I'm abusing my blog for it.</p>

<p>The following bugs were reported (and fixed) in rdup.
Thanks to Tom Hendrikx for reporting and fixing some
of the issues mentioned here.</p>

<h2>incremental backups of symlinks</h2>

<p>Incremental backup of symlink and hardlink were b0rked, this is
now fixed (revision r1780 and r1781) but this required a change
to the internal filelist which is used by <code>rdup</code>.</p>

<h2>rdup-simple with one argument</h2>

<p>rdup-simple would just go ahead even if you only
give it one argument. This is fixed in revision
<code>r1775</code>.</p>

<h2>rdup-simple -f without any previous backup</h2>

<p>This would fail, because the leading directories
are not created by <code>rdup-up</code>. This is fixed
in revision <code>r1777</code> by including a <code>mkpath()</code> function
and extending the <code>-t</code> flag of <code>rdup-up</code> a little.</p>

<h2>rdup-simple output to stderr</h2>

<p>Now only the errors are printed to stderr, the rest
if echoed to stdout. See revision r1778</p>

<h2>.nobackup are not respected</h2>

<p>Normally if a <code>.nobackup</code> file is found in a directory
the directory is excluded from the backup.</p>

<p>This is fixed in revision r1779.</p>

<p>Due to the internal file format change, the next version of rdup
will be 0.7.0 and we are closely going to a 1.0.0 release.</p>]]></description>

</item>
</channel>
</rss>

