what --forcd does (was Re: option --delete still not completely working (2.5.2))

[Dave Dykstra]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 01:11:13PM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 11:05:38AM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
> > I'm the one who put in that wording because I think I didn't completely
> > understand what it did at the time.  I just changed the wording to
> > 
> >           This option tells  rsync  to  delete  directories  when
> >           non-directories  (for  example symlinks or plain files)
> >           take their place even if the  deleted  directories  are
> >           not  empty.   This  applies to both the --delete option
> >           and to cases where rsync tries to copy  a  normal  file
> >           but  the  destination  contains a directory of the same
> >           name.
> > 
> > and I deleted the second paragraph about "very obscure cases".
> 
> 
> Hold on, this is still wrong.
...

> On Thu, Feb 18, 1999 at 07:11:36AM +1100, dwd at samba.anu.edu.au wrote:
...
> > As I was looking into changing the man page I discovered
> > an obscure case where it does make a difference: when copying from a file
> > when using -a (!) and the target is a non-empty directory.  Reproduce with
> >     mkdir /tmp/bin /tmp/bin/wc
> >     touch /tmp/bin/wc/f
> >     rsync -av /bin/wc /tmp/bin
> >     rsync -av --force /bin/wc /tmp/bin
> > Change any of the variables I mentioned and --force makes no difference.


I found another less obscure case where --force makes a diference: when
a non-directory replaces a directory when doing a normal recursive copy
without --delete:
    mkdir /tmp/s /tmp/d /tmp/d/f
    touch /tmp/s/f /tmp/d/f/f
    rsync -av /tmp/s/ /tmp/d/  # fails
    rsync -av --force /tmp/s/ /tmp/d/  # deletes /tmp/d/f recursively

I have changed the man page entry to this:

              This options tells rsync to delete directories even
              if they are not empty when they are to be  replaced
              by  non-directories.  This is only relevant without
              --delete because  deletions  are  now  done  depth-
              first.   Requires  the --recursive option (which is
              implied by -a) to have any effect.

- Dave Dykstra