Seems fine, using inodes to sort out duplicates is a great idea. I
suppose using hashes won't give much speedup here, since quantity of
directories is not known beforehand. I will apply and test the patch
today, thanks!
Wayne Davison wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 04:50:45PM +0400, Ivan S. Mani
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 04:50:45PM +0400, Ivan S. Manida wrote:
> Or please kick me in the right direction for a workaround which would
> make --keep-dirlinks consider sane symlinks only.
Seems like the only good solution for this is to keep track of the
device and inode of all the dirs we visit
On Sun 22 Aug 2004, Ivan Manida wrote:
> It is not infinite, but it is inconvenient since rsync would generate a transfer
> error. I think it makes sense to detect such symlinks and have an option which would
> modify copy-links and keep-dirlinks behavior, since it's not always possible to
> mo
It is not infinite, but it is inconvenient since rsync would generate a transfer
error. I think it makes sense to detect such symlinks and have an option which would
modify copy-links and keep-dirlinks behavior, since it's not always possible to modify
the sending filesystem to correct the loop.
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 04:50:45PM +0400, Ivan S. Manida wrote:
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 bldmstr staff 2 Aug 20 12:07 bogus -> ..
>
> if you use '--keep-dirlinks --delete' rsync goes into recursion trying
> to delete unexisting directory at destination.
Yeah, that's what all older rsyncs would
