unsafe_symlink change (Re: CVS update: rsync)

Dave Dykstra dwd at drdykstra.us
Fri Jan 17 15:44:00 EST 2003


On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 03:18:34PM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 04:08:01PM -0500, Scott Mcdermott wrote:
> > Dave Dykstra on Thu 16/01 14:57 -0600:
> > > > > The patch from 2-1/2 years ago for changing copy-unsafe-links to
> > > > > follow unsafe links on the destination side also included
> > > > > essentially this patch.
> > > > 
> > > > just to be clear, without using copy-unsafe-links, rsync still
> > > > copies absolute symlinks which point out of the source tree,
> > > > verbatim to the destination (even if it ends up dangling on the
> > > > destination), right?
> > > 
> > > Right, with the -l or --links option (implied by -a).
> > 
> > not to beat a dead horse, but copy-unsafe-links is certainly a misnomer.
> > I liked your follow-unsafe-links much better.  Copying the links doesn't
> > really have much to do with following them, which is what the option
> > actually does...
> 
> Yeah, what it really means is copy-in the files pointed to by unsafe links,
> but follow-unsafe-links is better except that the name applies equally
> well to source and destination.  I don't think it's worth changing the
> name unless functionality is also changed.

I just remembered that the name was based on the existing --copy-links
option so there was a precedent. 

- Dave



More information about the rsync mailing list