ACL and RSYNC and -a
marc at perkel.com
Fri Aug 12 15:44:19 GMT 2005
Wayne Davison wrote:
>Given a better implementation of the --acls option (i.e. one that
>doesn't complain if a source disk doesn't support ACLs), that might
>make sense. Another thing to keep in mind, though, is that rsync
>always passes the individual options to the remote rsync, so adding
>new options to -a makes it inconvenient to communicate with a variety
>of rsync versions. We'll need to balance these issues whenever ACL
>support gets officially included in rsync.
Yes - ok - so ACLs aren't "officially" there yet. That's actually good
in a way. Means there's room to do it right.
Ultimately this is an option that should "just work" and be transparent
as part of permissions. As to communicationg with a variety of rsync
version perhaps there should be some initial communication about
capabilities at the initial connection and adjust acordingly. Older
versions would be assumed to not have ACL capability and that data
wouldn't be sent. Or if the receiving file system doesn't support ACLs
then that data is silently removed.
-------------- next part --------------
HTML attachment scrubbed and removed
More information about the rsync