Feature-Request: --write-batch on destination not source

[Matthias Schniedermeyer]

Wayne Davison wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 06:27:35PM +0100, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
>> So for my case if would be great if i could instruct the destination
>> rsync, of the A -> B stage, to write the batch-file.
> 
> If you ssh into the B system and run the rsync command there, you can
> write the batch on the destination system that way.  If you can't ssh
> back into A to make the copy, you could check into ssh's port-forwarding
> options, and use a temporary rsync daemon on A for B to access.

"B" isn't allowed to initiate connections. The data is pushed from "A"
and pulled from "C".

I have a bit of experience with ssh and port-forwarding. So it's no
problem for me to put an entry into my config-file that does a
port-forwarding and starts the rsync on the remote site over the
mentioned ssh connection.

But what do i have to do on the local site?

I must say that i only used rsync for local transfers or over ssh, at
least the last half decade. I vaguely remember using rsync, as a daemon,
somewhere last or at the beginning of this millennium, when i first used
rsync. But that knowledge is long gone. ;-)

> I don't plan to make the server able to output the batch file -- I think
> it's best that the client does that.

I think that you should be able to chose that.

Having to jump the hoops, described above, isn't what i would call
"convenient", let along the "media break" argument and having to dig up
knowledge that was already resting in peace.
At least in my case.
;-)



Bis denn

-- 
Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as
bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer
wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated,
cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous.