https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3430
------- Comment #3 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-01-20 11:57 MST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > No, we copy the mount-point directory on purpose because we want it to be > there > should the remote system need to mount their own filesystem at that point. True, in some cases it might be useful to copy the mount point, but the empty folder on the destination might confuse someone about whether the filesystem was excluded or empty or what. I don't think it makes sense to copy the mount point unless we know the true attributes of the mount point itself as opposed to those overlaid on it by the mounted filesystem. For example, on my computer, I set 000 permissions on directories intended to be used as mount points, and then the permissions are overlaid with those of the root of the mounted filesystem. That way, it's easy to see whether the filesystem is mounted, and mistakes like backing up the system to /media/external-disk when the disk isn't mounted are avoided. If rsync were to copy those mount points, I would expect to see their underlying 000 permissions on the destination, not the permissions of the top of the mounted filesystem. > The right fix is to eliminate this ACL error altogether: rsync should never > complain about a source item not having ACL info; it should just copy the item > without ACL info. (This is one of the things that must be fixed before the > ACL > patch can make it into the released version of rsync.) Yes, that should be done no matter how rsync treats mount points. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.samba.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. -- To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
