batch applied: "Directory not empty (66)"

Wayne Davison wayned at
Fri Dec 9 20:10:52 GMT 2005

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 10:45:35PM -0800, Raymond Keller wrote:
> In my source I have a directory that changed to a file.  I know this
> requires --force or --delete, but using --only-write-batch I get no
> error until I attempt to apply the batch.

That's correct -- there's no problem generating the batch when the
destination is not being modified (rsync notices that the file changed
into a dir, but doesn't need to check if it is empty or not since it's
not actually being removed).  When the batch is read back, the user has
the option of using the --force option or not, regardless of how the
batch was made (since it doesn't affect the making of a batch).  In
fact, there is no problem if the user first uses the batch file without
--force, notices that it is needed, and then re-runs the same batch file
with --force since rsync skips all the already-applied changes prior to
the change that caused the halt.

> Also, unrelatedly, when rsync refuses to apply a specific change
> from a batch due to the destination not being in the right state, is
> there any way to get more detail on what aspect triggered the
> refusal?

I assume you mean the "Skipping batched update" message, that only
occurs for one reason:  the file is up-to-date (for whatever definition
of up-to-date was in effect when the batch was created).  The only other
refusal happens when the changes get applied and the file fails the
checksum (causing rsync to discard the bogus file unless --partial was
in effect).


More information about the rsync mailing list