Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Tomster · Sep 17, 2004, 01:55 AM

Upon downloading the update over a week ago, I tipped my hat to Apple for finally updating rsync to 2.6.2 (rsync --version). Up until that point Apple installed an old version of rsync which was completely worthless as it was not HFS+ aware. To get around this limitation, I installed and used rsyncX. (also version2.6.2) I assumed Apple got their act together and installed an HFS+ aware utility.

Nope! The version Apple installed does not do any Finder metadata or resource forks. Not sure as to the extent of damage to my system as I keep several systems remotely mirrored. The good thing is that I do not believe it will erase any metadata or resource forks as the utility is simply unaware of them. But it will not copy them either, resulting in incomplete back ups. Crap.

Big Mac · Sep 17, 2004, 02:37 AM

Uh, unless I am misreading your post, your complaint does not constitute a major problem. You said Apple did not provide HFS+ compatibility with that Unix application in its previous incarnation. While it is unfortunate that Apple did not provide the functionality you are looking for, that does not mean there is a "problem" with the software Apple provided. Beyond that, one should expect Apple's installers to overwrite any custom software that the user had replaced the standard version(s) with.

Tomster · Sep 17, 2004, 02:41 AM

Do you use rsync?

Big Mac · Sep 17, 2004, 02:54 AM

no, I do not.

Gavin · Sep 17, 2004, 04:08 AM

Originally posted by Big Mac:
. Beyond that, one should expect Apple's installers to overwrite any custom software that the user had replaced the standard version(s) with.

Actually, no it should not. There is no excuse for overwriting a newer version with an older version. Apple should expect that many users will upgrade some of the the built in tools with the latest versions. This is common practice in the UNIX world. It's simply a robustness issue for the installer.

On the other hand you should probably be putting your custom stuff in /usr/local/bin
not /usr/bin/ . Adjust your path so it looks in local first.

That's what /usr/local/bin is for and the installer should leave it alone. Which is I think the case. A quick look at my system shows that my hand rolled version is still there. (Time to upgrade, eh?)

-rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 228312 14 Sep 21:10 /usr/bin/rsync

[sport:~] me% /usr/bin/rsync --version
rsync version 2.6.2 protocol version 28
Copyright (C) 1996-2004 by Andrew Tridgell and others
Capabilities: 64-bit files, socketpairs, hard links, symlinks, batchfiles,
IPv6, 32-bit system inums, 64-bit internal inums

-rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 758424 28 Oct 2002 /usr/local/bin/rsync

[sport:~] me% /usr/local/bin/rsync --version
rsync version 2.5.5 protocol version 26
Copyright (C) 1996-2002 by Andrew Tridgell and others
HFS+ filesystem support for OSX (C)2002 Kevin A. Boyd
Capabilities: 64-bit files, socketpairs, hard links, symlinks, batchfiles,
no IPv6, 32-bit system inums, 64-bit internal inums

Big Mac · Sep 17, 2004, 06:19 AM

Just to clarify, when I said one should expect Apple installers to overwrite apps that users have modified I meant that the installer would overwrite the files if they were in the location it expected to install its files in. Users should not be installing their apps in the system's domain; if they do they should expect their apps to get trashed.

Gavin · Sep 18, 2004, 11:38 AM

I'd agree for /System but /usr is kind of iffy. An extra layer of careful in the installer couldn't hurt.

Webscreamer · Sep 19, 2004, 11:48 AM

Actually, there are no major problems. Please try again.

Tomster · Sep 19, 2004, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Webscreamer:
Actually, there are no major problems. Please try again.

What a wonderfully insightful comment! So how do you preserve the metadata or resource fork via rsync?

Angus_D · Sep 20, 2004, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by Gavin:
I'd agree for /System but /usr is kind of iffy. An extra layer of careful in the installer couldn't hurt.

No, /usr isn't iffy. /usr is owned by the system. Use /usr/local.

wataru · Sep 20, 2004, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Tomster:
What a wonderfully insightful comment! So how do you preserve the metadata or resource fork via rsync?

You don't, but then again you don't expect to since the Apple supplied rsync never did so to begin with. If you want to say that there always was a problem with Apple's rsync, then fine. But it's ridiculous to say that there is a problem with the update, since all it did is maintain the status quo with respect to this issue.

Tomster · Sep 20, 2004, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by wataru:
You don't, but then again you don't expect to since the Apple supplied rsync never did so to begin with. If you want to say that there always was a problem with Apple's rsync, then fine. But it's ridiculous to say that there is a problem with the update, since all it did is maintain the status quo with respect to this issue.

True. My issue was disappointment with with which version of rsync Apple decided to use. The update itself was fine. There are many unix utilities installed by Apple that are not completely current. Pico, for instance is chugging along at v 2.5 instead of 4.3. No big deal. If Apple were to ever upgrade this utility, hopefully they will go to 4.3 instead, let's say 3.7.

Rsync remained in its old form for quite some time until the last update. There are many branches to rsync right now. There is the ever popular rsyncX which is what I use right now. The problem is that target and source both have to be in hfs+. There is an alpha branch right now that does rsync with something similar to the old AppleDouble so one can rsync from hfs to non hfs. Apple could have used either as there was no real advantage to the version they updated.

In BSD, the thought is that if someone rolls a new utility into a non beta build, it must work. I really did not understand the logic of Apple's current version of the utility.

Jellytussle · Sep 20, 2004, 02:41 PM

You just hit the nail into the lid with your last remark. Apple are using the current build of rsync - 2.6.2. The hfs_rsync is a separate distro from umich, maintained by Kevin Boyd, and installs by default in /usr/local/bin. The AppleDouble patch is not even beta, so why would Apple use it? I suspect the only reason Apple updated at all was because of security issues. What hfs_rsync ( still at 2.6.0, as of yesterday, when i pulled the source from CVS) does about these insecurities is best addressed to Kevin.

I think you might be better off talking to the rsync maintainers about when general metadata and ACL support will appear, and meanwhile ensuring your scripts explicitly use /usr/local/bin/rsync, and don't rely on $PATH.