Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Ignoring resource forks

[Matthew Flaschen]

Simon Hobson wrote:
> I think the problem, from observation of effect (with MacOS at each
> end), not from reading any code is that the data file is processed, and
> the recipient is too dumb to realise that the other half will come later
> - so it copies the data file (which is different) and the other half
> gets deleted.

Why would the data file always be different if as you said, it excludes
both the resource fork and metadata?

> Then the other half comes along and gets copied as well.
> Or it could be that the metafile comes along first, it isn't present on
> the destination and so it gets copied (resulting in a modified file),

One would expect that the unified resource fork+metadata would be
handled fairly sanely by the rdiff algorithms.

> I think OS X uses AppleDouble to store files on a foreign filesystem - this 
> combines the
> resource fork with the metadata into a separate file, hence loads of
> files that start with ._

I still don't really see why this should result in the kind of behavior
the OP described, but I'm not that familiar with resource forks either.

Matt Flaschen