raf wrote:
> Cameron Simpson wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 02:30:39PM +1100, raf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | > And supposing I want different commands per invoking user or something else?
> > | i don't get your question. that's precisely what this is for.
> > | if you mean local user, that's why each user has their own ~/.rsyncrc.
> > | if you mean remote user, that's why it takes "user" parameters.
> >
> > And the "or something else" part? The point is that there may be an
> > arbitrary plethora of random things one might want to base such a
> > decision on. Obviously they can't all be encoded in your patch because
> > they aren't even defined yet. So while your patch might address your needs,
> > it will be inadequate in some weird portion of the world.
>
> no, because the last part of each line is a command which can be an
> intelligent one as you describe but it's only necessary to write such a
> thing when your requirements are wierd (i.e. not based on local host +
> local user + remote host + remote user). it's no less flexible than your
> method, it's just faster in most cases.
and if there's no match in ~/.rsyncrc, $RSYNC_RSH is used anyway...
raf
