am I missing something, or are permissions always preserved?

[Ben]

Yeah, my problem is that the chmod fails, so then rsync complains not
everything worked as expected. Because I'm writing files to a network
mount with forced permissions, I would like a way for rsync to simply
create the file and never try to chmod what it creates. Normally that
would probably be a bad idea, but when writing to a share with forced
permissions....

I'm actually a bit surprised nobody else has run into this.

On Tue, 2002-12-31 at 13:20, Dave Dykstra wrote:
> 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?