am I missing something, or are permissions always preserved?

[Dave Dykstra]

Then what would you expect it to do?  I'm guessing your only problem is
that the chmod is failing, and you would rather have it create files with
the final permissions in the first place; is that it?  I believe it is
done this way because of worries of potential security problems, where
temporary files might be accessible by more people than the original
file was.  Or is the issue that you rather have it always create file
permissions based only on umask?  In that case I don't know how it would
know whether or not to turn on the executable permission, among other
problems.  What exactly would your proposed flag do?

- Dave


On Tue, Dec 31, 2002 at 08:06:52AM -0800, Ben wrote:
> 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?