site_archiver@lists.apple.com Delivered-To: darwin-dev@lists.apple.com Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=l5WX4PFDDEbZkxvZ2ON9+xONGUM7kXE8eEFn1hUUydZFQlRt5RqhvxAJxNaAo1FXtJV+rFNg79pVcD2k4VsWtjDK7Zqfun53IEoNATxU2Lnv+dDR2+zILm/t74IXCiO94D6vjguyWpWbN3cK4gQTSB4dGilEkx790h0dfvTG918= On 3/4/06, Peter Seebach <seebs@plethora.net> wrote:

In message <1B305C63-31A8-4AF8-87A8-DA62443D5399@doit.wisc.edu>, Dave Schroeder writes:

...

And have these changes been submitted back to the rsync maintainers? Or are they really not interested in this? (And I'm really genuinely curious when I ask this...)

I have a hard time imagining anyone but Apple ever caring about resource forks. The inconsistency with the fundamental UNIX file model is simply too great.

Not to mention, I believe the implementation uses SPI and as a result isn't even buildable out of the box (needs private Darwin headers, builds with darwinbuild fine though). -- Finlay _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Darwin-dev mailing list (Darwin-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/darwin-dev/site_archiver%40lists.appl... This email sent to site_archiver@lists.apple.com