On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 09:25:05AM +1300, Jason Haar wrote: > This is a "me too". We've just been stung with that too.
I think rsync is trying to do things like rcp does: Use the permissions of the source file and apply the umask if -p is not set. This makes sense if you use it in an closed environment with a centralized user base (nis, nis+, ldap ...) and useful set umasks. permissions of unknown user and groups are useless. access to rsyncd is typical anonymous or based on it's own user base ( auth users / secrets file in rsyncd.conf ) and so you don't need and don't want this behaviour. > "rsync -r file remote::module/" appears to mean that the remote copy of > "file" indeed ends up with the perms assosiated with the umask of the rsync > daemon (as it should). However "rsync -r dir remote::module/" appears to > still transmit the permissions of the dir.. > > In fact, this brings up another issue. What if the rsync server > administrator wants to control permissions? What about a new config option > "umask = 0770" for instance? That way, irrespective of what options are used > by the client, the server controls the permissions; explicitly ensuring the > permissions are always set to that value (setting the umask before starting > rsync doesn't do the same thing, as this should be settable at the module > level). like samba is doing it > At the moment doesn't there seem to be a bit too much relying on the client > to "do the right thing"? If cp, rcp or scp is used it is easy to put permissions right chgrp -R test <dir>; chmod -R ug+rwX,o-rwx <dir> ; find <dir> -type d -print | xargs chmod g+s will do the job, but it also mess up the modification times. rsync should do this right by itself. cu, Stefan -- Stefan Nehlsen | ParlaNet Administration | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | +49 431 988-1260
