Feature-Request: --write-batch on destination not source
ms at citd.de
Tue Mar 13 22:59:24 GMT 2007
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.
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.
More information about the rsync