* Wayne Davison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [20051209 12:10]: > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 10:45:35PM -0800, Raymond Keller wrote: > > In my source I have a directory that changed to a file. I know this > > requires --force or --delete, but using --only-write-batch I get no > > error until I attempt to apply the batch. > > That's correct -- there's no problem generating the batch when the > destination is not being modified (rsync notices that the file changed > into a dir, but doesn't need to check if it is empty or not since it's > not actually being removed). When the batch is read back, the user has > the option of using the --force option or not, regardless of how the > batch was made (since it doesn't affect the making of a batch). In > fact, there is no problem if the user first uses the batch file without > --force, notices that it is needed, and then re-runs the same batch file > with --force since rsync skips all the already-applied changes prior to > the change that caused the halt.
I get it; distinct create and apply phases, with their particular behaviors/needs. > > Also, unrelatedly, when rsync refuses to apply a specific change > > from a batch due to the destination not being in the right state, is > > there any way to get more detail on what aspect triggered the > > refusal? > > I assume you mean the "Skipping batched update" message, that only > occurs for one reason: the file is up-to-date (for whatever definition > of up-to-date was in effect when the batch was created). The only other > refusal happens when the changes get applied and the file fails the > checksum (causing rsync to discard the bogus file unless --partial was > in effect). I do mean that, yes. I had the misunderstanding that the destination file had to be in a state identical to the corresponding destination file against which the batch was originally created, or an update would not be applied. Thanks for clarifying. I see now how I came into this erroneous idea. The man page says: ``The read-batch option expects the destination tree that it is updating to be identical to the destination tree that was used to create the batch update fileset.'' I failed to closely read the following sentences which explain exactly what you've told me here. Thanks for tolerating (and graciously answering) a man page question. And thanks for (maintaining) the software! Like gajillions of others these days, I have my backups based on rsync. 52 "snapshots" of three different systems, spanning two years, taking 31 gigs, with new snapshots added six times daily. I couldn't feel any more secure if I wore pants with both suspenders _and_ a belt. RSK -- To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
