On Dec 21, 2007 4:56 PM, Brian Dessent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris Velevitch wrote:
>
> > I thought rsync is meant for copying files between machines? In what
>
> There's no requirement that rsync can only be used between two different
> machines.
Then why use rsync locally and not cp?
> >
Chris Velevitch wrote:
> I thought rsync is meant for copying files between machines? In what
There's no requirement that rsync can only be used between two different
machines.
> It did have it,
> until it got depreciated.
No, it didn't have such an option. Go read those old threads.
--reply=
On Dec 21, 2007 12:51 AM, Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What exactly are you trying to do?
I copying files (currently with the cp command) to a destination and
if there is an existing file at the destination, the destination file
is kept.
I currently use:-
cp -r --reply=no source
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Chris Velevitch on 12/19/2007 11:37 PM:
> I use cp --noreply=no to unconditional keep existing files. Now that
> it's depreciated, I see no equivalent option.
It's --reply=no, not --noreply=no. And this has already been discussed:
http:/
I use cp --noreply=no to unconditional keep existing files. Now that
it's depreciated, I see no equivalent option.
The suggested alternatives don't work:
-i is interactive and I'm creating a non-interactive command
-f has the opposite effect: it unconditionally overwrites the
destination fi
