similar to: Keeping individual dirlinks

Hi, the combination of --keep-dirlinks and --delete (--delete-during, --delete-delay) erroneously deletes symlinks to directories on the receiver. With --delete-before and --delete-after it works as expected. (rsync version 3.0.3 protocol version, on Debian Lenny) I don't think that this behaviour is intended. Details/example: - Host 1 directory-structure: drwx------ ./1

Hello folks, trying to make use of the new --keep-dirlinks feature for a synch port; it works excellent but feels incomplete without a way for rsync to ignore recursive links. Example: # ls -la . total 6 drwxrwxr-x 2 bldmstr staff 512 Aug 16 21:42 . drwxrwxr-x 8 bldmstr staff 512 Aug 16 21:41 .. lrwxrwxrwx 1 bldmstr staff 2 Aug 20 12:07 bogus -> .. if you use

Hi, A minor bug in the manpage was noticed by a Debian user... (Please keep the 418923-forwarded@bugs.debian.org in the Cc list in replies.) diff -u -r1.399 rsync.yo --- rsync.yo 23 Jan 2007 15:34:43 -0000 1.399 +++ rsync.yo 12 Apr 2007 19:30:17 -0000 @@ -724,7 +724,7 @@ also ignored. Using this option in conjunction with bf(--relative) may give unexpected results. -dit(bf(-K,

Hello, I'm trying to push some data from one machine to another via rsync source machine uses rsync 3.0.8, it's a CentOS 5.6 Linux with rsync 3.0.8 package from rpmforge destination machine uses rsync 3.0.6, it's a Scientific Linux 6.0 with rsync 3.0.6 from its repository destination machine is running a rsync daemon with the following configuration: log file = /var/log/rsyncd.log

Hi, I have gone through the rsync documentation and also tested same both --no-implied-dir and --keep-dirlinks options. My question is what is the difference between these options in below scenario? I have /foo/bar is the symlink to /foo/baz at source and same directory structure with symlink is there at destination. When I sync the data from /foo/bar/* with --relative option specified, I am

Hi, I just read the thread http://lists.samba.org/archive/rsync/2004-June/009678.html which describes how --keep-dirlinks came to be. My use case is similar, but I?d like a similar option for files as well. Setup: in my public_html I have some symlinks which I send over as files, with -L (for various reasons: partly, because they are copies of current work which is done elsewhere, or

I've been using the --keep-dirlinks feature of 2.6.3pre1. I also use -x (--one-file-system) and --delete-after. The symlinked directories on the receiver are symlinked to a partition other than the one where the target of the rsync resides (that's the whole point of this nifty --keep-dirlinks feature). I discovered that the symlinked directories are not being processed for deletions.

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5601 Summary: extend --keep-dirlinks to files also Product: rsync Version: 3.0.2 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned@samba.org ReportedBy: hendrik.maryns@uni-tuebingen.de

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4037 Summary: Rsync should obey --keep-dirlinks when searching basis dirs Product: rsync Version: 2.6.9 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned@samba.org

Well, I just did a dirty test: * mklink link.txt "textfile.txt" * mklink /D DIrLink "Directory" * copied it to a samba share via Explorer (drag and drop). * copied it to a Windows share via Explorer (drag and drop). In both cases, it copied the contents of "textfile.txt" as "link.txt", definitely not a symlink (windows or otherwise). Same with

Wayne, Attached is a patch worth of suggested man page improvements for --no-implied-dirs and --keep-dirlinks. I think new users would find my explanations clearer and more complete, although you may want to make additional changes. I regenerated rsync.1 and the patch includes changes to it, but my yodl is somewhat weird, so I suggest you run yodl again yourself. -- Matt McCutchen

Hello there, sorry - my first mail seems to be lost? Might be I am wrong, but it seems that the behavior of wide link option has been changed since 2.2.7. So we have some problems on our large side to upgrade to 2.2.8a. Here is what I found, but it may be not the intention of samba developer! There ist a new function called readlink_checkin smbd/vfs.c. In this function is a pattern compare

Hi folks, I have a bunch of directories to mirror via rsync. I have lots of hardlinked files spread about these directories. Therfore I use -R (--relative) and -H. so far ok but: I create symlinks to the source-directories via script because src-dirs have changing names (date and time of backup) and I want to have constant directory names on target. How can I achieve that? I thought -k

If I have a backup script that does the following: (latest 2.6.9 rsync) rsync --archive --hard-links --force --ignore-errors --numeric-ids --keep-dirlinks --delete / /backup I've found that if there is a symlink in place that gets backed up (which goes fine), i.e.: homelink -> /home/ and then that symlink gets changed into an actual directory, i.e.: rm homelink mkdir homelink rsync

Thanks for your reply. I have a normal (../configure --enable-profiling --disable-optimized --enable-assertions) llvm debug+profile+assert build. I am generating llvm-bitcode using following commands. llvm-gcc -DLINUX_i386 -DSPEC_CPU2000 -O3 -emit-llvm 186.crafty/src/valid.c -c -o 186.crafty/src/valid.bc --- llvm-link 186.crafty/src/*.bc -o 186.crafty/186.crafty.rel.bc and finally: llc

Hello, I am getting the following error while generating code for arm using llc for one of the specint2000 benchmark. Though same works for x86 target. Command => llc -march=arm 186.crafty/186.crafty.rel.bc -o 186.crafty/186.crafty.m5arm.s Error => LLVM ERROR: Couldn't allocate output reg for constraint '{cx}'! Have anyone seen this before? Is there a work around for this?

Hello > Command => llc -march=arm 186.crafty/186.crafty.rel.bc -o > 186.crafty/186.crafty.m5arm.s > Error =>  LLVM ERROR: Couldn't allocate output reg for constraint '{cx}'! > > Have anyone seen this before? It seems you're feeding x86-specific LLVM IR to arm backend. Please don't do that. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics

Hi, this is possibly a bug report (I'm not sure if this is a feature). It's related to the --keep-dirlinks option, when combined with --delete . I have the following directory structure on server A: ls -lR software software: total 238 drwxr-xr-x 2 biolord bioinf 1024 Sep 20 10:49 EMBOSS/ lrwxrwxrwx 1 biolord bioinf 6 Feb 5 2003 MSE -> EMBOSS/ lrwxrwxrwx 1

Thanks David. Unfortunately many of us cannot use GPL v3 gcc so it's hard for us to investigate this. One question, can you tell if gcc is inlining significantly more than llvm? We have reports that this is one of the issue plaguing eon performance. There are also some relatively well known spec optimizations that we haven't implemented. e.g.

Hi, I have looked at the LLVM code generation quality using small test cases and in general it is better than I thought and in some cases better than gcc. However, there are still some gap in SPEC performance. I have not looked at the root cause of those gaps. Anyone who cares about LLVM performance need to take this seriously. For fair comparison, I used -fno-strict-aliasing in gcc to turn off