1 |
On Thursday 25 November 2010 21:51:36 Renat Golubchyk wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 23:01:51 +0000 Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> |
3 |
> |
4 |
> wrote: |
5 |
> > On Tuesday 16 November 2010 22:26:28 Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: |
6 |
> > > Am 2010-11-16 22:24, schrieb Alan McKinnon: |
7 |
> > > > Apparently, though unproven, at 23:12 on Tuesday 16 November |
8 |
> > > > 2010, Mick did |
9 |
> > > > |
10 |
> > > > opine thusly: |
11 |
> > > >> Excellent, it worked! :-) |
12 |
> > > > |
13 |
> > > > Glad to hear it. |
14 |
> > > > |
15 |
> > > > I could help because part of my job is running a rather big |
16 |
> > > > public ftp mirror that management graciously pay for. And I went |
17 |
> > > > down this rsync road a long time ago myself. |
18 |
> > > > |
19 |
> > > > You have no idea how many brain cells died in agony to figure out |
20 |
> > > > this specific piece of rsync behaviour :-) |
21 |
> > > |
22 |
> > > ;-) |
23 |
> > > |
24 |
> > > I would like to know if my suggestion also works ;-) |
25 |
> > > |
26 |
> > > Yeah, include/exclude-patterns are rather hard to figure out |
27 |
> > > sometimes ... nearly like regexes -> write once, read never .... |
28 |
> > |
29 |
> > Ha, ha! True! |
30 |
> > |
31 |
> > Stefan, I tried escaping the spaces (even tried \\ double and \\\ |
32 |
> > triple escapes in case it makes a difference because of using ssh) |
33 |
> > but still did not work. In my head I couldn't see how the full path |
34 |
> > would not work, but the relative path would, but I tried it out all |
35 |
> > the same. |
36 |
> > |
37 |
> > I still don't understand why Alan's recommendation works ;-) |
38 |
> |
39 |
> I'm probably late with my reply, but I'll post it so it will be in the |
40 |
> archives for future reference. |
41 |
> |
42 |
> The man page is actually pretty clear on this issue. Quote: |
43 |
> |
44 |
> if the pattern starts with a / then it is anchored to a particular |
45 |
> spot in the hierarchy of files, otherwise it is matched against the |
46 |
> end of the pathname. This is similar to a leading ^ in regular |
47 |
> expressions. Thus "/foo" would match a name of "foo" at either the |
48 |
> "root of the transfer" (for a global rule) or in the merge-file’s |
49 |
> directory (for a per-directory rule). An unqualified "foo" would |
50 |
> match a name of "foo" anywhere in the tree because the algorithm is |
51 |
> applied recursively from the top down; it behaves as if each path |
52 |
> component gets a turn at being the end of the filename. Even the |
53 |
> unanchored "sub/foo" would match at any point in the hierarchy |
54 |
> where a "foo" was found within a directory named "sub". |
55 |
> |
56 |
> "Root of the transfer" is the directory you want to sync. Thus, if you |
57 |
> run e.g. "rsync /var/log/ /mnt/backups/ --exclude=/portage/" then root |
58 |
> of the transfer is /var/log, and therefore the directory |
59 |
> /var/log/portage will be excluded. If on the other hand you write |
60 |
> --exclude=portage/ then a directory named portage anywhere in the tree |
61 |
> under /var/log will be excluded. Without the trailing slash, i.e. just |
62 |
> --exclude=portage any file (regular file, directory, link, whatever) |
63 |
> named portage anywhere in the tree gets excluded. And finally |
64 |
> --exclude=/portage would exclude a file only at the top of the tree that |
65 |
> is going to be synchronsed. |
66 |
> |
67 |
> Hope it helps. |
68 |
|
69 |
Yes it does! Thank you, it's clear to me now why it behaved so. |
70 |
|
71 |
-- |
72 |
Regards, |
73 |
Mick |