rsync options exist for a reason [LWN.net]

rsync options exist for a reason

Posted Nov 6, 2020 17:02 UTC (Fri) by david.a.wheeler (subscriber, #72896)
In reply to: Deprecating scp by marcH
Parent article: Deprecating scp

I disagree, the many other rsync options exist for a reason. I have a situation where I use three lines of options for rsync (!).

The world needs a "simple replacement for cp that copies remotely" and a "sophisticated tool for remote synchronization". They don't need to be the same tool, and historically have been different. I'd like to see a more secure version of the first category. In the first category most people don't really need the scp *protocol*, they just need a simple replacement for "cp" that works remotely. That is, it's the CLI interface, not the protocol, that matters.

to post comments

rsync options exist for a reason

Posted Nov 6, 2020 21:02 UTC (Fri) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]

> I disagree, the many other rsync options exist for a reason. I have a situation where I use three lines of options for rsync (!).

Of course other rsync options exist for a reason and I do look them up and use them sometimes. Above I was only referring to basic, [s]cp-like usage.

Answering other comments too: if you must preserve hardlinks, sparse files, ACLs or some other unusual stuff then you better check the man page of _any_ tool you use.

> The world needs a "simple replacement for cp that copies remotely" and a "sophisticated tool for remote synchronization". They don't need to be the same tool, and historically have been different.

They don't need to be different tools either. I've been using a unique tool for "simple replacement for recursive, _local_ cp" all the way to "sophisticated tool for remote synchronization" and it has made simple things easy and complex things possible. So if you want a solution that already exists now then give it a try. If scp muscle memory is just too strong then a sincere "best of luck!"