>>>>> "JWS" == jw schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> wrote the following on Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:25:47 -0800
JWS> What i do expect for the next few years is that almost all JWS> files will have no EAs and that less than half will have ACLs. JWS> I do however expect that ACL usage will affect entire trees JWS> (setfacl -R -m) rather than scattered files. Yes, this sounds likely to me also. If so, it doesn't seem very important to apply the rsync algorithm to the contents of the EAs/ACLs - updating them as a whole if there is any change shouldn't be too inefficient. Also, if the ACL/EA information needs to be stored separately (because for instance the target system doesn't have ACL/EA capability), does it seem better then to use one big file, instead of, for instance, a whole tree of smaller files? I was thinking that maybe the file's format could be the same as the (gzipped) output of getfattr/getfacl --recursive. That would make things more compatible, but may be slightly inefficient compared to some other format. Also there may be no point if the getf[attr/acl] format is likely to change soon. -- Ben Escoto
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
