am I missing something, or are permissions always preserved?

[Dave Dykstra]

On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 11:00:58AM -0800, Ben wrote:
> Well that's annoying. I've tried changing the encoding of this
> attempt... maybe it'll get through this time.

Yes, it came through better 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.

Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if it only looked for certain error codes from
the failed chmod.  The nice thing about ignoring errors is that it's one
less thing for users to have to learn and understand.

Any other opinions?

> 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.

At a minimum I think the option is too limited.  I'd want a solution
that would work for both the fixed permission samba case and the vfat
filesystem under Linux case.  In particular, I don't see it skipping
the fchmod in do_mkstemp.  I don't know, maybe that's the only addition
that would be needed.

- Dave