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

Wayne Davison wayned at
Sat Mar 13 21:23:31 GMT 2004

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 11:17:43AM -0500, D Andrew Reynhout wrote:
> The most straightforward and plausible idea I can think of
> is to update the protocol to include explicit file-IDs
> (instead of implicit offsets in the sorted flist)

I have no desire to see the current protocol get explicit IDs.  I think
it would be better to simply ensure that the lists sort identically on
each side, and the best way to do that is to ensure that both sides sort
the exact same list.

For instance, in the prior example of munging the names using ".~~~" in
place of "/..", I can think of two better solutions than having the
lists differ on each side prior to the sort:

(1) The sender would create the file list pre-munged (with a simpler
naming scheme) but flagged in such a way that it would know that it had
to tweak the name back into its unmunged form before opening it.  (This
solution avoids needing a modified rsync on the receiving side.)

(2) The sender sends the list unmunged but flagged as "needing to be
transformed".  Such entries would then be munged sometime after the
sort.  (This solution has the disadvantage of requiring both sides to be
upgraded, but it does do less munging, especially if the receiving side
had native support for the resource-fork files.)


More information about the rsync mailing list