difference between --no-implied-dir abd --keep-dirlinks ?
masaniparesh at gmail.com
Tue Jun 30 15:57:14 GMT 2009
Thanks Wayne; I understood your point but two more questions arise
from details given by you is, if I have --keep-dirlinks specified but not
--no-implied-dir then also it sends directory attributes, and the
destination is forced to match that results into losing destination
symlinks? I have tested this and noticed that it doesn't remove destination
The other question is, if I specified --no-implied-dir then would rsync
synch symlinks and directory entries if same are not available at
destination? I have tested this but still confusing in differentiating these
two options. I am not able to find any differences. Could you help me out
with one real example that show the difference between these options?
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Wayne Davison <wayned at samba.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:33:34AM +0530, Jignesh Shah wrote:
> > I have gone through the rsync documentation and also tested same both
> > --no-implied-dir and --keep-dirlinks options. My question is what is the
> > difference between these options in below scenario?
> Implied directories are those that are above the transfer area but
> included as a part of the path due to the use of -R (--relative). By
> default all implied directories get sent with their directory
> attributes, and the destination is forced to match that. If you want
> the implied paths to differ, --no-implied-dir will leave them alone.
> Using --keep-dirlinks also affects the transfer area, so that you can
> put a symlink to a directory anyplace that the sender has a dir.
> Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list.
> To unsubscribe or change options:
> Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
-------------- next part --------------
HTML attachment scrubbed and removed
More information about the rsync