symlink bug still not fixed

Wayne Davison wayned at
Fri Apr 23 04:25:21 GMT 2004

On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 08:54:57PM -0700, Peter Sturdza wrote:
> Hmm.  But the symlink is older.  I would expect the symlink to
> overwrite an older file, but not a newer one, which it does.

If it was an "older" directory, would you expect it to also not replace
a newer file?  Rsync doesn't work that way, though I can see how someone
might want it to.  I will consider such a change for the future, but
I'll have to spend time contemplating the repercussions.  Anyone else
want to weigh-in on how they expect -u to work?

> It isn't unreasonable to then assume that if one of them needs a
> slight modification, one would replace the symlink with a regular file
> and make that modification.  Now, if you use rsync to synchronize your
> desktop and laptop, say, then the modification is destroyed.

You might want to check into unison.  It is designed to handle a
situation where changes are being made on both ends of the transfer.


More information about the rsync mailing list