Symlink file syncing issue

Wayne Davison wayned at
Mon Nov 8 17:22:21 GMT 2004

On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 09:10:56AM -0800, Joel Watson wrote:
> However, it definitely DID follow the symlink and update the files at
> that location.

If the symlink pointed to a directory, yes (as I explained, that's how
2.6.2 behaved with -L, and how 2.6.3 behaves with -K).  The only way to
make a file symlink update the referent file might be to use --temp-dir
to a different partition than the destination directory, which might
cause rsync to copy the temporary file to the symlink rather than to
replace it via rename (if it does, that is a bug that needs to be


More information about the rsync mailing list