I've been using a 2.6.2 that I modified myself to get ACLs as I like.  
I'm trying now to get back into the public version of rsync, but am 
finding difficulties.

This one seems pretty basic.  It's on a CentOS 4.5 machine with rsync rpm 
rsync-3.0.4-1.el4.rf and kernel 2.6.9-55.0.2.plus.c4.  After the 
operation, f1 and f2 should have identical ACLs.  They don't.

        [EMAIL PROTECTED] t]# ls -l
        total 4
        -r-xr-xr-x+ 1 adm sys 0 Nov  2 12:57 f1
        [EMAIL PROTECTED] t]# getfacl f1
        # file: f1
        # owner: adm
        # group: sys
        user::r-x
        group::r-x
        mask::r-x
        other::r-x
        
        [EMAIL PROTECTED] t]# rsync -aX -v --itemize-changes f1 f2
        sending incremental file list
        >f+++++++++ f1
        
        sent 118 bytes  received 32 bytes  300.00 bytes/sec
        total size is 0  speedup is 0.00
        [EMAIL PROTECTED] t]# getfacl f1 f2
        # file: f1
        # owner: adm
        # group: sys
        user::r-x
        group::r-x
        mask::r-x
        other::r-x
        
        # file: f2
        # owner: adm
        # group: sys
        user::r-x
        group::r-x
        other::r-x
        
        [EMAIL PROTECTED] t]# rsync --version
        rsync  version 3.0.4  protocol version 30
        Copyright (C) 1996-2008 by Andrew Tridgell, Wayne Davison, and others.
        Web site: http://rsync.samba.org/
        Capabilities:
            64-bit files, 64-bit inums, 32-bit timestamps, 64-bit long ints,
            socketpairs, hardlinks, symlinks, IPv6, batchfiles, inplace,
            append, ACLs, xattrs, iconv, no symtimes
                    
        rsync comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.  This is free software, and you
        are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions.  See the GNU
        General Public Licence for details.
        [EMAIL PROTECTED] t]# 

I originally discovered this in a network copy which uses link-dest.  
The previous copy of the file has the correct/complete ACL, and the
link-dest logic sees this as different from the "new" copy result so
a new copy of the file - with the wrong ACL - is written.

Is this somehow desired behavior, or is there some option combination
that can be applied to "fix" this so that the copied ACL truly matches
the source?

Thanks...

        Andrew
-- 
Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list.
To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Reply via email to