On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 09:33:26AM +0200, Francis Montagnac wrote:
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 08:55:48PM -0600, John Van Essen wrote:
Example cmd: rsync -a --relative /home/me /dest
Source root: /home
I think it's instead:
Source root: /
Am i wrong?
I think you're right. Elsewhere in
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 07:55:01AM -0800, Wayne Davison wrote:
I wonder if we should change the examples to have multiple sources?
Perhaps this would be good:
Let's say that we want to match two source files, one with an absolute
path of /home/me/foo/bar, and one with a path of
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, Francis Montagnac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Example cmd: rsync -a --relative /home/me /dest
Source root: /home
I think it's instead:
Source root: /
Am i wrong?
Remember - we are talking about the transfer root, not the
filesystem root or partition root.
The
Remember - we are talking about the transfer root, not the filesystem
root or partition root.
Yes.
The source transfer root is the source path with any trailing node
removed up to the last slash.
I see, but as soon as you have more than one source argument to rsync,
except when using
Example cmd: rsync -a --relative /home/me /dest
Source root: /home
I think it's instead:
Source root: /
Am i wrong?
Target root: /dest
I/E pattern: /home/me/foo/bar (note full path)
Source file: /home/me/foo/bar
Target file: /dest/home/me/foo/bar (note full path)
--
[EMAIL
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 08:55:48PM -0600, John Van Essen wrote:
This is another opportunity to (try to) make more clear the
effects of using a trailing slash on the source and using the
--relative option. They not only affect the absolute-path
pattern but also where the source file ends up on
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 10:29:35AM -0800, Wayne Davison wrote:
Thanks, I edited this down a little and included it in my suggested doc
change (it's now in CVS).
Thanks! I think with those examples, everyone should be able to figure
out what to do.
Andrew
--
To unsubscribe or change options:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 11:03:31PM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
The exact filename tested against include/exclude patterns is not
always obvious, and the documentation is somewhat ambiguous about it.
This bites particularly when using patterns starting with '/'.
Yes, this could certainly use
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Wayne Davison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 11:03:31PM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
The exact filename tested against include/exclude patterns is not
always obvious, and the documentation is somewhat ambiguous about it.
This bites particularly when using
