On 19Oct2011 22:14, Brian K. White <br...@aljex.com> wrote:
| On 10/19/2011 6:58 PM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
| >On 19Oct2011 12:02, Benjamin R. Haskell<rs...@benizi.com> wrote:
| >| rsync has to parse the URL you're passing. The fact that it then
| >| takes that and runs something like `$RSYNC_RSH -l user host` is
| >| because rsync expects it's handing the connection duties off to
| >| something that uses rsh-like calling conventions. So, it's
| >| "desirable" because rsh-like tools traditionally expect it.
| >
| >But rsh-like tools _all_ accept user@host already.
| >They don't "expect" the "-l" form - they cope with it.
| >
| >This argument does not make it desirable unless rsh or ssh don't cope
| >with user@host. Which they do.
| >
| >| If rsync didn't parse the URL and split it out, each tool would have
| >| to do its own {user}@{host} parsing. So, it's not fully
| >| "necessary". (Most of the tools probably do have that kind of
| >| parsing.) It just makes things easier for tools that use the '-l'
| >| convention.
| >
| >The point here is the rsync is presuming to know about the tool. The
| >whole point of the -e and $RSYNC_RSH stuff is to use arbitrary tools.
| >Having rsync pull out the user doesn't _help_ rsh or ssh, both of which
| >has always (AFAIR) accepted user@host and does raise the implementation
| >bar for other tools for no actual benefit.
| >
| >Has anyone a use case that _breaks_ if rsync doesn't pull out what it
| >imagines is the "user@" part?
|
| I think it's not reasonable to expect complex muti hops like that to
| work. For instance, they only work for you because you just luckily
| happen to be using all the same kind of tool for all hops.
Within the same administrative domain it is entirely reasonable.
The very name of the script "sshto" says I probably expect ssh all the way.
Out of curiosity, how many non-ssh rsync setups have _you_ encountered
in the wild? (Ignoring "rsync daemon" stuff.)
| It's not a common case. Would your trick work if any of the hops had
| to be rsh or telnet or serial? If any of the hops used a nonstandard
| tcp port?
Do people use rsync over telnet? I concede that telnet accepts -l and
doesn't accept user@host. But is this a real world example?
A nonstandard port is indeed not addressed unless there's a handy
ssh_config clause.
| I do agree I'd rather rsync didn't try to parse anything it didn't
| have to. Maybe I don't think this situation is general enough to go
| out of the way to support, but I do agree it's undesirable to go out
| of the way to break it without some specific reason, and a reason
| that's overall worth more.
Well, I've modified my script to unmangle rsync's overparsing, so my
particular problem is resolved. But I think reading extra structure into
the [user@]host: part is a misfeature at best.
Cheers,
--
Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au> DoD#743
http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/
What if you are underpaid? Know the joy of being worth more than you get -
the pure joy of unrecognized superiority. - Rev. S. M. Smith
--
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
