On Thu 29 Jan 2009, Scott Edwards wrote:
> On Thursday 29 January 2009 11:29:05 am Paul Slootman wrote:
> > On Wed 28 Jan 2009, supaplex wrote:
> > > host:/backups/production# make -n pull
> > > rsync --delete --link-dest=backup-2009-01-27/ \
> > > -avP u...@production.example.com: backup-2009-01-28/
> >
> > Note that --link-dest directories that are relative, are relative to the
> > destination directory. Thus unless you happen to have a
> > backup-2009-01-28/backup-2009-01-27/ directory, the above command's
> > --link-dest is useless.
> >
> > I suspect the problem you're seeing is due to that.
> I'll have to try that, but after further review of this option in the man
> page, it's not implied (unless copy-dest mentions it).
>From the (2.6.9) rsync manpage, in the --link-dest description:
If DIR is a relative path, it is relative to the destination
directory. See also --compare-dest and --copy-dest.
> This functionality is a little strange to me. I don't forsee how someone
> would really want to mingle the destination with previous source data like
It makes it easier to invoke the rsync command from different places
where you only have to adjust the destination. The implication is that
you need to use --link-dest=../backup-2009-01-27/
i.e. add a ../
> this. You'd have to excude it when restoring, or sending it anywhere else.
> Should rsync emit warnings when it doesn't locate the link-dest directory
> expected to be used?
Rsync makes it possible to use it in a very flexible manner, making it
give warnings for every variation of "normal" use would get in the way
of that. I'm sure there are people who use it in a way similar to what
you're doing which makes perfect sense in their situation.
Paul Slootman
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
