Re: [Duplicity-talk] duplicity overwrites on restores .. Re: Duplicity wiped out my server

[T. Prost]

Am Mittwoch, den 06.05.2015, 14:34 +0200 schrieb address@hidden:
> On 06.05.2015 14:09, Scott Hannahs wrote:
> > 
> > On May 6, 2015, at 05:07, address@hidden wrote:
> > 
> >> On 06.05.2015 10:27, address@hidden wrote:
> >>> OK folks, this software is truly DANGEROUS. The command line is 
> >>> incredibly obscure and counter-intuitive, …<Rant>
> >>> even big corporations, still simply make fucking tar archives.
> >>>
> >>
> >> 1. work on your manners, please.
> >> 2. use duply, if the command lines are too complex for you.
> >> 3. and most importantly, as a feature duplicity does not delete or 
> >> overwrite anything on your local filesystem during a restore. it will 
> >> complain that the tatget exists and fail. that's why you always have to 
> >> restore to a temp location and mv it manually from there.
> >>
> >> regards.. ede/duply.net
> > 
> > A remarkably good response!  Thank you.
> > 
> 
> thanks.. because i try to give the benefit of the doubt to everybody i 
> quickly doublechecked the 'duplicity overwrites' statement. for a file 
> restore using --file-to-restore . the somewhat surprising results were
> 
> A. object to restore is a file, target is an existing file
>  
> 'Restore destination directory tmp/test already exists.
>  Will not overwrite.'
>  
>  although not specifically mentioned in the output _nor_ the manpage, using 
> --force will overwrite it!
> 
> B. object to restore is a folder, target is an existing file
>  
>  behaviour same as A. , although it fails as it does not replace the file 
> with the folder. shows errors like
>  
> 'Error '[Errno 20] Not a directory: 'tmp/test3/duply_/INSTALL.txt'' 
> processing duply_/INSTALL.txt'
> 
> C. object to restore is a file, target is an existing folder (given w/o a 
> trailing slash)
>  
>  no warning, for empty folder
>  same as A., _note_ that a folder is replaced by a file here
> 
> D. object to restore is a folder, target is an existing folder (given w/o a 
> trailing slash)
> 
>  no warning, for empty folder
>  warning, overwritable via --force when folder contains files. result is a 
> mix of old and restored content.
> 
> in conclusion, we should probably address that ;( 
> 
> 
> ..ede/duply.net

Ede,

first I thought I'd understand everything above, but now having a few
free days and reading the whole over again in leisue, nevertheless doubt
comes to me.
I do not see any difference in A-to-D behaviour of duplicity. None of
the existing objects is overwritten when the --force option isn't
applied ?! But unsolicited use of --force wouldn't warn the user :-o

Talking about the effects of --force should be thought over again, I
agree to you. The fact that using --force overwrites single files (after
occurred warning) seems safe and rather logical. The behaviour in the
case (C.) seems to be programmed inconsistently, although I would like
even more comments from you. Guess, this made duplicity wipe the root ?

Would be possible to simply copy those 8 commands, introduced with your
examples including results, from your terminal to the list ? I am not
yet clear with the critical cases as you provoked them.
--
Best,
Thomas