On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 08:01:29PM -0700, Peter Sturdza wrote:
I found and reported a bug about a year ago regarding
symbolic links but haven't seen any mention of it
since and it is still present in 2.6.1-pre2.
Just want to make sure it isn't forgotten.
Thanks for the reminder. I hope to
--- Wayne Davison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
The way rsync currently works, it doesn't consider a
file and a symlink
to be the same thing, so the -u option will not
prevent a file from
being replaced by a symlink.
...
Hmm. But the symlink is older. I would expect the
symlink to
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 08:54:57PM -0700, Peter Sturdza wrote:
Hmm. But the symlink is older. I would expect the symlink to
overwrite an older file, but not a newer one, which it does.
If it was an older directory, would you expect it to also not replace
a newer file? Rsync doesn't work that
--- Wayne Davison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will consider such a change for the future, but
I'll have to spend time contemplating the
repercussions.
Thanks. If you decide against changing the behavior,
then please add a note in the man page (perhaps where
the -u option is explained and in
