[Bug 8336] --implied-dirs should include the file-list root by default

samba-bugs at samba.org samba-bugs at samba.org
Mon Aug 8 10:45:53 MDT 2011


--- Comment #11 from Matt McCutchen <matt at mattmccutchen.net> 2011-08-08 16:45:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> That's weird, because that has been the desired behavior in all the cases I
> have ever used the option.  If I'm copying a particular set of files, I don't
> want effects outside of the files I specify.

Absolutely... but how is /path/to/./foo/bar/ any less a "specification" of .
than of ./foo ?

> I might not even have permissions
> to tweak the root dir in a situation where a particular set of subdirs was
> created for me (e.g. a copy of my home subdir).

Could you give me a more detailed example?

> The current method lets me
> choose to include it or not.  Making it mandatory takes away the user's choice.

Valid point.  This is probably a case like --chmod=ugo=rwX where the default
should stand but users should realize it often isn't what they want.

> The parent dir may not even be the same dir, e.g. /path1/./some/path
> /path2/./another/one -- in such a case, which dir should be the root of the
> transfer?

/path1/, according to the usual rule that earlier source args take priority. 
This issue is in no way specific to the file-list root (you can equally well
have /usr1/./share/rsync and /usr2/./share/frobnitz collide at "share"), so it
does not justify treating the file-list root specially.

> With the current method, the user can choose one, should they so
> desire.

That only helps with the file-list root.  The complete solution would be to
support --exclude of implied dirs, like IIRC rsync 2.6.9 did.

Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.samba.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

More information about the rsync mailing list