Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

RFE to allow dry-run against read only target

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Stuart Anderson

unread,
Jul 1, 2016, 8:19:09 PM7/1/16
to
I would like to request that rsync -n to an rsync server target that is read only be supported rather than generating the following error,
ERROR: module is read only

The motivation is to allow the generation of a list of files against an rsync target that will be used by another application. Since dry-run mode does not require write access it would be convenient if the “module is read only” error message was only thrown if/when a write attempt is made and not assume write access is needed.

Thanks.

--
Stuart Anderson ande...@ligo.caltech.edu
http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/~anderson




--
Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list.
To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Paul Slootman

unread,
Jul 8, 2016, 10:07:27 AM7/8/16
to
On Fri 01 Jul 2016, Stuart Anderson wrote:

> I would like to request that rsync -n to an rsync server target that is read only be supported rather than generating the following error,
> ERROR: module is read only
>
> The motivation is to allow the generation of a list of files against an rsync target that will be used by another application. Since dry-run mode does not require write access it would be convenient if the “module is read only” error message was only thrown if/when a write attempt is made and not assume write access is needed.

Of course, one could argue that the point of the -n option is to test if
it will work when the -n option is removed. That would not be the case
here.


Paul

Perry Hutchison

unread,
Jul 10, 2016, 11:34:29 AM7/10/16
to
Paul Slootman <paul+...@wurtel.net> wrote:
> On Fri 01 Jul 2016, Stuart Anderson wrote:
> > I would like to request that rsync -n to an rsync server target that
> > is read only be supported rather than generating the following error,
> > ERROR: module is read only
> > ...
> Of course, one could argue that the point of the -n option is to test if
> it will work when the -n option is removed. That would not be the case
> here.

This could be covered by emitting a warning (rather than an error)
if the target of --dry-run is read-only.
0 new messages