rsync: multiple new bugs and regressions reported upstream

[TeusLollo]

Is this a new report?

Yes

System Info

Void 6.18.33_1 x86_64 AuthenticAMD uptodate rrrrm

Package(s) Affected

rsync-3.4.3_1 and possibly some versions before: RsyncProject/rsync#915 (comment)

Does a report exist for this bug with the project's home (upstream) and/or another distro?

NixOS/nixpkgs#522245 (comment)

chimera-linux/cports#5636 (comment)
chimera-linux/cports#5636 (comment)

RsyncProject/rsync#928 (comment)
RsyncProject/rsync#927
RsyncProject/rsync#915
RsyncProject/rsync#899
RsyncProject/rsync#900
RsyncProject/rsync#922

Expected behaviour

See bugs linked in the above

Steps to reproduce

Still haven't seen anything out of the ordinary with basic mirroring rsync usage, but you can see there are multiple fairly critical bugs in the above that could slip through on automated backup processes

[classabbyamp]

for what it's worth: https://social.treehouse.systems/@thesamesam/116662824873341085

(that said I'm not defending the slopification)

[TeusLollo]

I really don't want to add fuel to the fire and I'll avoid providing links, but some are throwing around the idea this was another attempt at sabotage like it happened with https://lwn.net/Articles/967180/

For sure, https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/releases/tag/v3.4.2 had a lot more contributors than the usual, it wouldn't be easy to review all of their changes

Me, I am not convinced of that, but it's also true that several features seem to be broken since 3.4.2

It may thus be better to revert to https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/releases/tag/v3.4.1 for now, then see what happens.

I'd guess there won't be much discussion in the following days outside of flaming, and anyone using rsync in a production environment may be more interested in getting rsync back in shape and see what happens from now on

[dogknowsnx]

It may thus be better to revert to https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/releases/tag/v3.4.1

Just for feedback, that's what I did

[ahesford]

@TeusLollo I've stripped irrelevant portions of your issue from the report. If you feel this substantively changes your intent, please close the issue.

This is absolutely not the place to start a holy war about the method of development or the intent behind recent changes in rsync. We all have our own opinions about that. They aren't relevant to the packaging discussion.

We can use this thread to discuss the merits of reverting rsync to avoid the known issues (and any others that might appear). Any comments that stray from this purpose will be hidden or deleted.

[TeusLollo]

@TeusLollo I've stripped irrelevant portions of your issue from the report. If you feel this substantively changes your intent, please close the issue.

As you wish, my intent was merely informative in regard to users and maintainers, I did not produce flaming of any kind

Anyone else is free to contribute. Let's also await for how upstream will react.

[mkartic]

At least RsyncProject/rsync#899 is not related to rsync.
RsyncProject/rsync#899 (comment)