The Samba-Bugzilla – Bug 5183
-r --include= --exclude= broken for version>=3.0.0pre5?
Last modified: 2012-07-26 10:01:26 UTC
I'm probably missing something (apologies if so), but this has worked
for me for years, and starting from 3.0.0pre5 has stopped working in a
way that smells of some kind of bug.
To reproduce the (possible) bug, set up the following scene.
Remote host/directory: remote_host:/some/dir
Local host: current directory containing file `foo'
(I'm assuming working passwordless ssh connection between local and
From the directory containing the file foo I issue the following command:
rsync -e ssh -r --include='/foo' --exclude='*' ./ remote_host:/some/dir
Now: for versions <=3.0.0pre4 this copies foo to the remote host, but
for versions >=3.0.0pre5, foo is not copied any more.
Running the command in verbose mode does not throw any light into my
(lack of) knowledge:
rsync -e ssh -rvv --include='/foo' --exclude='*' ./ remote_host:/some/dir
opening connection using: ssh remote_host rsync --server -vvre30.14i . /some/dir
sending incremental file list
removing duplicate name . from file list (2)
removing duplicate name . from file list (3)
removing duplicate name . from file list (4)
removing duplicate name . from file list (5)
total: matches=0 hash_hits=0 false_alarms=0 data=0
sent 51 bytes received 15 bytes 132.00 bytes/sec
total size is 0 speedup is 0.00
I can add that all works nicely even with version>=3.0.0pre5 the other
way around: i.e.:
rsync -e ssh -r --include='/foo' --exclude='*' remote_host:/some/dir ./
copies remote_host:/some/dir/foo into local current directory, as I
was always used to obtain.
Am I doing something wrong or something has changed between 3.0.0pre4
I could not find any report on this in bugzilla, and this makes me
think I might be making some gross mistake, but, as I said, that used
to work for years and still perfectly works for versions<=3.0.0pre4.
I'm on linux (220.127.116.11, i686)
I thank you very much in advance for any hint and, of course, for
making rsync available.
oops, sorry for the duplicate
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 5182 ***
*** Bug 9030 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***