is -l switch needed when invoking rsync ?

[MontrealSergiy]

-a (ARCHIVE) option of rsync should already include -l (symlinks)

[prioux]

I don't understand the context of this issue. What is the problem? Which rsync? We use rsync all over the place in CBRAIN.

For data providers, we already have, as a matter of design decision, that symbolic links are preserved as-is. So the rsync options used by the data provider code already does that.

[prioux]

So can we close this?

[MontrealSergiy]

The context is that the rsync commands containing both -a and -l can be shortened

[MontrealSergiy]

but up to you

[prioux]

I did not understand you original ticket. The subject and description shoudl have said all that. e.g.

Subject: rsync commands have -l option
Description: in the data provider class (file.rb at line xyz and xyz)
the rsync command is invoked. In the options, both the "-a" and "-l"
options are specified. Given that -l is already implied by -a, is
the -l really necessary?

As you can see, providing a full description of what goes on would have prevented a lot of back and forth.

And the answer is: it is probable that some older versions of rsync did not imply -l with -a, and that is why I originally wrote the command like that. Since there is no harm, let's no change it, especailly since we're still connecting to legacy systems where the old behavior might be still active.

[MontrealSergiy]

Actually, the first release of rsync in 1996 already was like that ( -a included -l) because these options where modelled on tar.

The source archive is still available at https://download.samba.org/pub/rsync/src

At the same time there is no harm in a redundant option indeed , but would you mind in the upcoming code I skip -l