Anyway, I thought I'd mention that there is still a patch in the rsync source tree that was submitted a long time ago to attempt a "fuzzy" match on file names (patches/rusty-fuzzy.diff). It doesn't patch correctly on the current sources, BTW.
-- Alberto
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 05:12:04PM -0800, jw schultz wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 11:42:12AM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
>
>>> > On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 06:27, jw schultz wrote:
>>
>>>> > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 09:06:52PM +0300, ??????? ???????? wrote:
>>>
>>>>> > > > Hello!
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > As I was found rsync do not detect file renaming. If I just copy my
>>>>> > > > backup.0.tgz (many Mbytes in size having it's md5) to backup.1.tgz
>>>>> > > > (which will be equial in size and md5) it will be the same file
>>>>> > > > in fact...
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Rsync will delete old file (backup.0.tgz) on the receiving side and
>>>>> > > > download new one (backup.1.tgz). I do not think there are any
>>>>> > > > difficulties to detect this situation and follow the natural way:
>>>>> > > > just rename the file on the receiving side.
>>>>> > > >
>
>>
>>
>> In most cases it is reasonable to adjust file naming schemes
>> to use less ephemeral names thereby avoiding the problem
>> altogether.
--
************************************************************************** Alberto Accomazzi, NASA Astrophysics Data System http://ads.harvard.edu Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics http://cfa-www.harvard.edu 60 Garden St, MS 31, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] **************************************************************************
-- To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
