Hello list!
Combining -M--fake-super with --chmod ends up changing the permissions
stored in the fake-super xattrs. I.e. the permissions stored in the xattr,
are
affected by --chmod.
The desirable behaviour for me would be for --chmod to modify the real
permissions of the destination files.
on both the real permissions and the
permissions in the xatttr. Maybe the behavior has changed since
whatever version you have (3.1.3 here) but this probably wouldn't help
you either.
On 12/8/19 7:56 PM, Dimitrios Apostolou via rsync wrote:
Hello list!
Combining -M--fake-super with --chmod ends
rsync --perms -M--fake-super src dst
For me, this command means that rsync should save the original perms in the
xattr, and leave the real file mode to the umask default. Currently it also
modifies the real file mode, and there is no way to store something
different
in the xattr.
According to
:46 PM, Dimitrios Apostolou via rsync wrote:
rsync --perms -M--fake-super src dst
For me, this command means that rsync should save the original
perms in the
xattr, and leave the real file mode to the umask default.
Currently it also
modifies the real file mode, and there is no way to store
provided
modified by the --chmod. I wouldn't expect the receiver to even know
the other permissions.
On 3/12/20 1:23 PM, Dimitrios Apostolou via rsync wrote:
Thank you for the feedback, I'm glad to see that different people see
the issue
differently. As a followup question, what would you expect
the ones in the xattr which set does
it use?
On 3/16/20 10:01 AM, Dimitrios Apostolou via rsync wrote:
Thanks. This is a bit counter-intuitive to me. So how would you tell
rsync to store the original permissions in the xattr, but do not touch
the real file mode?
On Thursday, March 12, 2020 6:26:18 PM
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 9:17:09 PM CET, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
On 2020-03-17 00:03:03 [+0100], Dimitrios Apostolou via rsync wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 10:34:53 PM CET, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
via rsync wrote:
I'm still not sure if rsync requires a cryptographic hash
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 10:34:53 PM CET, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
via rsync wrote:
I'm still not sure if rsync requires a cryptographic hash _or_ if a
strong hash like xxHash64 would be just fine for the job.
I'm fairly sure the hash should *not* be easy to spoof, so I'd say a
