am I missing something, or are permissions always preserved?

[Ben]

No, these are for new files. Existing files work perfectly, but, like
you said before, for new files rsync creates the file then attempts to
alter the permissions based on the origional permissions and umask. 

On Tue, 2002-12-31 at 07:58, Dave Dykstra wrote:
> What do you mean, "altered"?  Do the destination files already exist?
> It is supposed to preserve existing permissions on destination files 
> when you don't use -p.
> 
> - Dave
> 
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 06:44:24PM -0800, Ben wrote:
> > Hmmm... while that makes sense, that doesn't really help me in my
> > situation, where permissions cannot be altered because of the network
> > mount they are being written to.
> > 
> > Does it make sense to impliment a "don't touch permissions" flag?
> > 
> > On Tue, 2002-12-24 at 05:08, Dave Dykstra wrote:
> > > When preserve_perms is not set, rsync sets a default permission based on
> > > the original permissions and the umask.  A comment in flist.c says that is
> > > what GNU cp does, so that's why rsync does it.   Comments in generator.c
> > > and receiver.c indicate that if a file already exists and preserve_perms
> > > isn't set, the original permissions should be preserved.
> > > 
> > > - Dave
> > > 
> > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2002 at 12:30:55PM -0800, Ben wrote:
> > > > They seem to be for me, even when I don't pass in the --perms flag. This
> > > > is a problem because I'm rsyncing to a samba mount with fixed
> > > > permissions.
> > > > 
> > > > Looking at rsync.c (for version 2.5.5) starting at line 204, I see this
> > > > code snippet:
> > > > 
> > > > #ifdef HAVE_CHMOD
> > > >     if (!S_ISLNK(st->st_mode)) {
> > > >         if (st->st_mode != file->mode) {
> > > >             updated = 1;
> > > >             if (do_chmod(fname,file->mode) != 0) {
> > > >                 rprintf(FERROR,"failed to set permissions on %s : %s\n",
> > > >                     fname,strerror(errno));
> > > >                 return 0;
> > > >             }
> > > >         }
> > > >     }
> > > > #endif
> > > > 
> > > > I would have expected to see a test for the setting of perserve_perms,
> > > > but it's not there. Is this a bug or is there there a reason
> > > > perserve_perms isn't checked?