RFC for feature request
dwd at bell-labs.com
Mon May 13 10:50:01 EST 2002
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 05:00:17PM -0500, Dave Barnett wrote:
> Recently at work we've begun using rsync to sync up our development baseline
> area between our office in Houston, and the one in Gatwick.
> We use rsync quite extensively, and are quite happy with it, but have run
> into a bug discussed by Dave Dykstra in the "Discussion/2214" entry on the
> rsync website:
> Basically, due to the way fnmatch does it's matching for excludes, something
> we thought we had excluded got clobbered when we didn't want it to be
> touched. The issue is that fnmatch expects to match from the beginning, but
> we were trying to match deeper in the directory structure.
> Once we found Dave's comments, we were able to get around the issue, but it
> got me to thinking. His parting words were:
> Someday include/exclude's semantics and implementation should be completely
> I'm very familiar with Perl, and Perl regular expressions, as I use both
> constantly. At http://www.pcre.org you will find the Perl Compatible Regular
> Expression library.
> What I'd like to propose [and am willing to work on in my "free" time], is to
> a) a new command-line option [or two] that allow for the fnmatch behavior
> [default] or the use of the PCRE library's RE engine.
> b) the functions to implement the file matching bits needed by include /
> exclude using the pcre library functions.
> However, before I delve into doing this, I'd like some comments:
> 1) Has the above bug already been worked out?
It has come up again recently and Wayne Davison is working on a fix for it.
> 2) Is anyone working on such a re-write / addition? Doesn't have to be using
> "pcre", but I'd hate to "waste" time implementing it if someone else is
> already working along the same lines.
Nobody is working on such an addition, and I think it would be very
helpful. I think it should probably match only on entire path names and
not applied recursively like the confusing current algorithm.
> 3) How are things like this normally handled?
You mean feature additions to rsync? Write a patch and submit it to the
> The reason I would prefer to do this as an additional option is that it will
> allow existing scripts to continue unchanged, while allowing those who want
> to use the pcre features can do so.
I think that makes a lot of sense.
- Dave Dykstra
More information about the rsync