After updating to 3.2.3 (along with updating other packages) I'm getting errors of the form `rsync: [generator] failed to set permissions on "/blah/blah/blah": Operation not supported (95)` on symlinks.
I assume the underlying OpenSuse system doesn't support setting permissions on symlinks, but I do want to sync permissions on everything but symlinks without getting these errors.
I think fixing this would require an option like `--omit-link-permissions` similar to the existing option `--omit-link-times`
I've encountered a similar situation, but with OpenAFS, which for some reason reports the protection for symlinks as `rwxr-xr-x`.
Thus using `rsync` with `--perms` and targeting an OpenAFS folder fails with a similar error stating that it can't `chmod` the permissions for that symlink.
I am similarly using 3.2.3 on OpenSUSE Tumbleweed (the client) and the same version on OpenSUSE Leap 15.2 (the server). A few monts ago (say January) I've not encountered this error (I'm using the same scripts as before).
In essence to reproduce this issue one just has to:
ln -s /dev/null /tmp/source/some-symlink
# Access: (0777/lrwxrwxrwx) Uid: (1000/ ciprian) Gid: (1000/ ciprian)
ln -s /dev/null /afs/.../target/some-other-symlink
# Access: (0755/lrwxr-xr-x) Uid: (33025/ UNKNOWN) Gid: (1000/ ciprian)
# up to here we've checked that the source file-system behaves normaly while OpenAFS forces the protection I've stated.
rsync -r -p -i --links /tmp/source/some-symlink /afs/.../target/
rsync: [generator] failed to set permissions on "/afs/.../target/some-symlink": Operation not supported (95)
cL+++++++++ some-symlink -> /dev/null
rsync error: some files/attrs were not transferred (see previous errors) (code 23) at main.c(1330) [sender=3.2.3]
(The same happens when the target is via SSH.)
(In reply to Ciprian Dorin Craciun from comment #1)
Trying to `strace` what `rsync` does in my OpenAFS use-case I've found that the only syscals invoked by `rysync` (and pertaining to the file in question) are:
Furthermore, none of them actually fail, instead it seems that the "Operation not supported (95)" is actually generated internally (although I couldn't easily identify its origin).