Marc Perkel wrote: > Seems to me it should warn but continue to copy the files anyway ignoring > the ACLs.
Not necessarily. Failing to copy the ACLs could result in an insufficiently protected file. In that case, better to not copy w/o the ACLs. And that's just an example off the top of my head. There are probably other good reasons to avoid that behavior. At a more basic level, I think there's a general expectation that a file "sync" should be atomic: all or nothing. Failing to copy the file's ACL while copying the file's content violates that expectation. - Andrew -- To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
