am I missing something, or are permissions always preserved?

Dave Dykstra dwd at drdykstra.us
Tue Dec 31 21:59:01 EST 2002


OK, now I understand.  I have seen those errors also when writing onto a
PC filesystem mounted by Linux.  Other programs like tar and cpio have
the same problem, so I've just ignored the messages.  Maybe everybody
else does the same.  Maybe a well thought out and documented patch for
a new flag would get put in.  It would be even better if it could be
detected automatically, but I'm not sure how to do it.  How do people
feel about just silently ignoring the error if -p wasn't specified?

- Dave

On Tue, Dec 31, 2002 at 01:31:07PM -0800, Ben wrote:
> 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?



More information about the rsync mailing list