rsync - Feb 2007 - DO NOT REPLY [Bug 4378] New: Handling of symbolic links

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4378

           Summary: Handling of symbolic links
           Product: rsync
           Version: 2.6.6
          Platform: x86
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: core
        AssignedTo: wayned@samba.org
        ReportedBy: michael.schliephake@t-online.de
         QAContact: rsync-qa@samba.org


RSync ignores symbolic links by default (warning written out).

Scenario: 'dirA' contains files and links and should be synchronized
with
'dirB' and vice versa.

   rsync -v --delete dirA dirB

copies files from A to B and lets links in A. The opposite command

   rsync -v --delete dirB dirA

should now do nothing because directories are "in sync". Instead of
this the
command deletes the links in A.

I argue that links should not be deleted if they are ignored in the opposite
direction. Otherwise it is not possible to write "symmetric commands".
Of
course the same is true for the other variants of link treatment (not tested by
me).


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.samba.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4378





------- Comment #1 from wayned@samba.org  2007-03-27 17:37 MST -------
Created an attachment (id=2350)
 --> (https://bugzilla.samba.org/attachment.cgi?id=2350&action=view)
Limit deletions to exclude items we aren't transferring

Here is a simple patch for the CVS version that limits the deletions to skip
symlinks, device files, and other special files if they are not being
synchronized.  I'm considering this patch for inclusion in 3.0.0.

Thanks!


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.samba.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4378


matt at mattmccutchen.net changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|Don't delete file types that|Don't delete files that
                   |aren't being transferred    |wouldn't have been
                   |                            |transferred




------- Comment #3 from matt at mattmccutchen.net  2009-11-27 20:12 CST -------
I'd like to broaden this ticket to include an analogous issue with
--min-size
and --max-size:

http://lists.samba.org/archive/rsync/2006-February/014784.html


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.samba.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4378





------- Comment #4 from matt at mattmccutchen.net  2009-11-27 20:34 CST -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> I notice that the patch only affects extraneous "special" files
immediately
> inside file-list directories, not those in extraneous directories.  [...]
The goal of this ticket is really to make --min-size/--max-size behave more
like an ordinary exclude.  And the decision to be made is whether this exclude
is "perishable".

I realize that different users may have different expectations about how these
options behave.  See, for example, the following request that --max-size behave
as a real hide rather than a transfer rule:

http://lists.samba.org/archive/rsync/2009-November/024300.html

So probably the most general solution is to add filter rules based on size and
a new filter action that means "show but don't process" to emulate
a transfer
rule.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.samba.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4378





------- Comment #5 from matt at mattmccutchen.net  2009-11-27 20:36 CST -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> The goal of this ticket is really to make --min-size/--max-size behave more
> like an ordinary exclude.
Whoops, the ticket was originally about the file-type options (-r/-d, -l,
--devices, --specials), but the point is the same.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.samba.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.