am I missing something, or are permissions always preserved?

[Ben]

I'm relatively new to rsync, but it seems to me that if there's an
option to perserve permissions and you don't set it, then rsync
shouldn't do anything with permissions.

I think having chmod silently fail in the absence of -p works here as
well, but I may well not be thinking about all cases.

On Tue, 2002-12-31 at 13:57, Dave Dykstra wrote:
> 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?