On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 02:11:55PM -0400, Eddie Anzalone wrote: > I don't think it's wise allowing the "--daemon" to accept absolute > paths from the client
Correct, it's not wise unless a client-specified absolute path is anchored at the start of the module's path, which is what rsync does. I was talking about possibly allowing the option specified when *starting the daemon* to be absolute (since that's a server-specified option), but I had already decided against this because I want the code to behave consistently regardless of the setting of "use chroot". > It seems more intuitive to specify this setting via the conf file, > rather than on command line. Yes, that would be a good idea. Other options such as --address and --port were recently promoted to config-file settings, and making it possible to control the temp-dir on a per-module basis would be nice. > so a new option to use absolute path (to local/private storage) may > actually help to avoid the small chance of conflict should two rsync > servers attempt to work on the same file at the same moment? No, temporary files have a random component to their names so they cannot conflict. ..wayne.. -- To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
