--- Wayne Davison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I will consider such a change for the future, but
> I'll have to spend time contemplating the
> repercussions.
Thanks. If you decide against changing the behavior,
then please add a note in the man page (perhaps where
the -u option is explained and
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 08:54:57PM -0700, Peter Sturdza wrote:
> Hmm. But the symlink is older. I would expect the symlink to
> overwrite an older file, but not a newer one, which it does.
If it was an "older" directory, would you expect it to also not replace
a newer file? Rsync doesn't work t
--- Wayne Davison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> The way rsync currently works, it doesn't consider a
> file and a symlink
> to be the same thing, so the -u option will not
> prevent a file from
> being replaced by a symlink.
> ...
Hmm. But the symlink is older. I would expect the
symlink t
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 08:01:29PM -0700, Peter Sturdza wrote:
> I found and reported a bug about a year ago regarding
> symbolic links but haven't seen any mention of it
> since and it is still present in 2.6.1-pre2.
>
> Just want to make sure it isn't forgotten.
Thanks for the reminder. I hope
Hi.
I found and reported a bug about a year ago regarding
symbolic links but haven't seen any mention of it
since and it is still present in 2.6.1-pre2.
Just want to make sure it isn't forgotten.
It can be reproduced by synchronizing two directories,
one of which contains a normal file and the o
