On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 12:29:36PM +0100, Stefan Nehlsen wrote: > 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:
I see comments in the code where "!preserve_perms" is used that it's trying to behave like GNU cp. > 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. The main issue for you is that the setgid bit is not being inherited from parent directories when not using the -p option, right? I agree that that would make sense. I suggest that you submit a patch. - Dave Dykstra
