rsync - Mar 2004 - some clarity Re: HFS+ resource forks: WIP patch included

I'd note that the mkisofs man page listed about a dozen different
formats used in various contexts to store Mac resource forks and
finder metadata in various contexts. I'd imagine the advent of MacOSX
(with UFS support) has narrowed the field of what options are common
somewhat, but it's an area where a lot of ad-hoc solutions made it
out to the real world. On the other hand, the mkisofs source might be
a useful source of code fragments for dealing with related issues.
-- 
     Albert Lunde         Albert-Lunde@northwestern.edu (new address)
                          Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (old address)

On 13 Mar 2004, at 08:10, Albert Lunde wrote:
> I'd note that the mkisofs man page listed about a dozen different
> formats used in various contexts to store Mac resource forks and
> finder metadata in various contexts. I'd imagine the advent of MacOSX
> (with UFS support) has narrowed the field of what options are common
> somewhat, but it's an area where a lot of ad-hoc solutions made it
> out to the real world. On the other hand, the mkisofs source might be
> a useful source of code fragments for dealing with related issues.
Without looking at mkisofs, I'd expect that storing the data in a 
format that could be natively consumed by Mac OS X on UFS is probably 
desirable.  That way, for instance, one might use rsync locally on a 
Mac between HFS+ and UFS partitions.  However, the real question for 
rsync is: what should the transfer format be.  Certainly there are 
other factors: should not require temporary files, should not change 
the protocol, should store data losslessly on foreign filesystems 
without changing destination code.  That last is a big one for me.

:wes