On 5/15/2013 8:35 AM, Paul Slootman wrote:
On Wed 15 May 2013, Brian K. White wrote:
rsync -avz /foo/ ${DEST}::root/foo/
This syntax does work in his case, and is easier to read, because it
ends up using the exact same specification "/foo/" and "/foo/" for
both source and dest, but the syntax I had was also correct. I no
longer remember why I always do the way I posted, but I've been
doing it that way for decades (if you count rcp before rsync).
My reasoning is that if you're transferring a directory, make that
obvious by specifying a trailing slash. But use whatever you're happy
with, just don't complain if things get confusing (which it looked like
was the problem).
The -f ". filename" syntax is correct it's right in the manual and
I've been using it for ages.
Well, -f specifies a filter rule. You're using -f to specify a filter
rule to tell rsync to merge in a file with additional filter rules,
which is a bit of a roundabout way. Why not tell rsync directly to read
a file with include/exclude rules by using --exclude-from
I did in the case when it was only one pattern, but that was just a
simplified example.
The actual job involves too many include and exclude patterns to use
--include & --exclude, or even --include-from and --exclude-from,
because the patterns are generated on the fly by a script from values
supplied on the script commandline or hardcoded at the top, and for each
of those values several different include and exclude patterns are
generated, and, the order they appear in the filter file matters, I need
to write the filter file so that certain things get included before
others, and all the includes & excludes aren't necessarily together in
two contiguous blocks.
-f ". filename" is actually the simplest and neatest way to express the job.
--
bkw
--
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
