hey all
'scp -r ' follows symlinks. IMO this is a bug and should be changed -
it:
a) hampers the use of scp. As it stands, I cannot use 'scp -r' because
of this
behavior. If someone links to '/', or if I hit a recursive
symlink, I'm screwed.
b) It is inconsistant with cp. When you 'cp -r' on a file, it does NOT
follow the
symlink. When you scp -r on a file, you *do*.
And since scp is implemented in terms of cp (for local copies) this leads to
one use of scp preserving links, and another by making files out of them!
This
is unintuitive and wrong.
Please change this if it already is not changed - or indicate that a patch could
be
accepted to change it. I am aware of the alternatives, such as tar and rsync.
However,
using tar requires an extra binary to be installed on a remote or local machine,
and rsync
requires an extra program to maintain, and an extra service to run(?).
And I don't want an extra dependency just to shore up a deficiency in an
otherwise useful
tool.
Ed
(ps - if people *don't* consider this a bug, then I'd appreciate someone
telling me
why. Just from googling, I've seen people complain about this up and down,
causing
everything from GB of mistransfer to clogged traffic.
)
And breaks rcp compatible syntax which is WORSE because that is what people DEPEND on when moving from rcp/rsh to scp/ssh. - Ben On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Edward S. Peschko wrote:> hey all > > 'scp -r ' follows symlinks. IMO this is a bug and should be changed - it: > > a) hampers the use of scp. As it stands, I cannot use 'scp -r' because of this > behavior. If someone links to '/', or if I hit a recursive symlink, I'm screwed. > > b) It is inconsistant with cp. When you 'cp -r' on a file, it does NOT follow the > symlink. When you scp -r on a file, you *do*. > > And since scp is implemented in terms of cp (for local copies) this leads to > one use of scp preserving links, and another by making files out of them! This > is unintuitive and wrong. > > Please change this if it already is not changed - or indicate that a patch could be > accepted to change it. I am aware of the alternatives, such as tar and rsync. However, > using tar requires an extra binary to be installed on a remote or local machine, and rsync > requires an extra program to maintain, and an extra service to run(?). > > And I don't want an extra dependency just to shore up a deficiency in an otherwise useful > tool. > > Ed > > (ps - if people *don't* consider this a bug, then I'd appreciate someone telling me > why. Just from googling, I've seen people complain about this up and down, causing > everything from GB of mistransfer to clogged traffic. > ) > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > openssh-unix-dev mailing list > openssh-unix-dev at mindrot.org > http://www.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev >
tar is _everywhere_. In fact, tar works much, much more often than scp does. rsync does not require an extra service when invoked as such: rsync -e ssh -r user at host:/path path symlink syntax is notoriously messy. It's rare that anything _but_ tar can handle it correctly (I mean, that's the point -- it looks like a normal file/dir). --Dan Edward S. Peschko wrote:>hey all > >'scp -r ' follows symlinks. IMO this is a bug and should be changed - it: > > a) hampers the use of scp. As it stands, I cannot use 'scp -r' because of this > behavior. If someone links to '/', or if I hit a recursive symlink, I'm screwed. > > b) It is inconsistant with cp. When you 'cp -r' on a file, it does NOT follow the > symlink. When you scp -r on a file, you *do*. > > And since scp is implemented in terms of cp (for local copies) this leads to > one use of scp preserving links, and another by making files out of them! This > is unintuitive and wrong. > >Please change this if it already is not changed - or indicate that a patch could be >accepted to change it. I am aware of the alternatives, such as tar and rsync. However, >using tar requires an extra binary to be installed on a remote or local machine, and rsync >requires an extra program to maintain, and an extra service to run(?). > >And I don't want an extra dependency just to shore up a deficiency in an otherwise useful >tool. > >Ed > >(ps - if people *don't* consider this a bug, then I'd appreciate someone telling me >why. Just from googling, I've seen people complain about this up and down, causing >everything from GB of mistransfer to clogged traffic. >) > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >openssh-unix-dev mailing list >openssh-unix-dev at mindrot.org >http://www.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev > >