On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 09:41:56 +0200 "'Felix Fontein' via Ansible Development" <ansible-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> > --- > > copy_links: Copy symlinks as the item that they point to (the > > referent) is copied, rather than the symlink. > > > > links: Copy symlinks as symlinks. > > --- > > > > This looks rather redundant to me (plus I do not really understand > > what the "is copied" part for copy_links should mean). > the formulation is a bit broken. The "is copied" shouldn't be there. > Feel free to create a PR to remove that part. (The line in question is > here: > https://github.com/ansible-collections/ansible.posix/blob/main/plugins/modules/synchronize.py#L99) Ok, I'll look into that. > --links, -l > When symlinks are encountered, recreate the symlink on the > destination. > > --copy-links, -L > When symlinks are encountered, the item that they point to (the > referent) is copied, rather than the symlink. [...] I still don't understand why both exist, they appear to be mutually exclusive. Or is --links intended to copy links, and --copy-links to copy files, i.e., they are designed to achieve the opposite of each other? In that case, I do not understand why ansible offers to turn off or on both of them independently. That might also explain why setting "links: no" in ansible does not change the behaviour as expected (because the underlying rsync option is just removed, but that does not force any other behaviour). cu Gerrit -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ansible Development" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ansible-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ansible-devel/20200922092539.78ae8def%40comet2.terra.ger.
