am I missing something, or are permissions always preserved?

[Ben]

Well that's annoying. I've tried changing the encoding of this
attempt... maybe it'll get through this time.

As a rule of thumb, I think silent errors a very bad idea. It means
things might not be behaving like you expect, but you have no idea. In
general, rsync's current behavior is correct. In my case niche case, it
doesn't work. I think the proper solution is to change rsync's behavior,
not reduce the errors it produces.

If it comes through, take a look at the patch. I think I did a decent
job of updating the docs so that purpose of the new flag is clear.

On Mon, 2003-01-13 at 06:54, Dave Dykstra wrote:

> > Okay, attached is a patch I just whipped up that seems to work well. It
> > adds the --skip-perms flag, which has the effect of making rsync not try
> > to set permissions, not even to sane values.
> 
> I was not able to read your patch because it seems to have lots of
> characters that I can't view on my email reader.  A header on the
> attachment says
>     X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to base64 by mx6.mx.voyager.net
> so my ISP must have had trouble with it.
> 
> Anyway, I wasn't thinking of an option, I was thinking of it doing
> something that was the default whenever there was no -p.  I'd rather
> avoid adding an option if we can get away with it.  I'm now having second
> thoughts about stripping off the setuid/setgid bits by default without
> '-p', because that's not what GNU cp does.  I think it would be better if
> it just silently ignored errors from chmod and fchmod when -p is not set.
> 
> - Dave
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: perms.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 6510 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/rsync/attachments/20030113/3df26664/perms.bin