[<<]Message[>>]    [<<]Author[>>]    [<<]Subject        [<<]Thread    

Number   :  10581
Date     :  2005-02-22
Author   :  des4212001
Subject  :  Re: Maybe Related?
Size(KB) :  2



--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, Kan Yabumoto  wrote:
> DES wrote:
> 
> >
> > The recent discovery of the extentionless file exclusion
> > bug brought me back to DPE.DUS. Perhaps you remember?
> 
> The exclusion (/X:) and inclusion bugs (/IN:) that I mentioned
> was specifically with the case where the specifier ends with
> the "*." pattern (that is treated as if the pattern ends
> with "*"). But, we are not aware of other problems.
> 
> 
> 
> > //Exclusions--------------
> >
> > /X:Dpe.dus
> > /X:Thumbs.db
> 
> 
> 
> > That DPE.DUS file exists only on the Remote Source.
> > No possible version of specifying it's exclusion will
> > actually exclude it?
> 
> If the dpe.dus file is in the destination directory
> and it does not exist in the source directory, then,
> the /X:dpe.dus switch has no effect at all. This
> is a feature. Although we heard many people saying
> that the /X: switch should have effects on the
> destination directory, we have not done so (arguably
> with some justification).
> 
> > The exclusion works fine when the Source is Local
> > and the Destination is Remote.
> 
> Let us keep ourselves focused on whether the file is
> in the source directory or in the destination directory.
> XXCOPY's exclusion (or inclusion operation) is not
> sensitive whether the directory is remote or local
> (we are not aware of exclude/include bugs that is
> sensitive to the remote/local issue).
> 
> The /X: feature has no effects on the contents of
> the destination directory whether it is local or
> remote. If you make the remote volume the source
> directory in an XXCOPY command, /X: will have its
> effect on the source.
> 
> The bugs I was talking about was the rare instance
> of the pattern that ends with "*." which is a funny
> way of saying in Microsoft's world that the pattern
> does not have any DOT in the pattern. Again, I'm
> not aware of this issue to be related to the
> remote/local situation.
> 
> Kan Yabumoto

Your last sentence there is Exactly Why I brought this up Again. I 
understand that Exclusions only apply to the Source (although I'd 
dearly love Destination Exclusions rather than having to make 2 
passes). But if you'll re-read the post replied to... I'm trying to 
point out that xxcopy "Is Sensitive" to whether the Source is Local 
or Remote. And it's also sensitive to the form of the exclusion in 
this case. Repeatably & undeniably, irreguardless of symantics. The 
only situation I can't work around is when the exclusion resides in 
the base source (not a sub-directory of the source) and the source 
is remote.

I don't know if further details will help, but just in case... The 
example command file is being run on W98 (FAT32) and the source in 
on WinXP (NTFS), my LAN uses NetBEUI rather than TCP/IP. Anything 
else?

That one file isn't worth the trouble, but as I pointed out, the 
problem isn't unique to a particular file (no suprise). A situation 
exists that isn't handled correctly. Sorry.

DES



This message if part of XXCOPY's message Archive.
The archive contains all the messages posted at Yahoo!Groups: XXCOPY.