some clarity Re: HFS+ resource forks: WIP patch included

Wesley D Craig wes at
Sat Mar 13 20:55:00 GMT 2004

On 13 Mar 2004, at 08:10, Albert Lunde wrote:
> I'd note that the mkisofs man page listed about a dozen different
> formats used in various contexts to store Mac resource forks and
> finder metadata in various contexts. I'd imagine the advent of MacOSX
> (with UFS support) has narrowed the field of what options are common
> somewhat, but it's an area where a lot of ad-hoc solutions made it
> out to the real world. On the other hand, the mkisofs source might be
> a useful source of code fragments for dealing with related issues.

Without looking at mkisofs, I'd expect that storing the data in a 
format that could be natively consumed by Mac OS X on UFS is probably 
desirable.  That way, for instance, one might use rsync locally on a 
Mac between HFS+ and UFS partitions.  However, the real question for 
rsync is: what should the transfer format be.  Certainly there are 
other factors: should not require temporary files, should not change 
the protocol, should store data losslessly on foreign filesystems 
without changing destination code.  That last is a big one for me.


More information about the rsync mailing list