I just rsync everything once an hour to another machine with a bigger hard drive, and then do an rsync --delete when the drive gets full. Version control can be helpful too. What happens if you blacklist a file thru a symlink, or rm a file thru a symlink? I didn't see anything to deal with that. The chances of having added the file that you didn't want to delete to this list is quite small.
Jason On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Dan Hipschman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 02:04:38PM +0100, P?draig Brady wrote: > > I'm not sure an option like this would help much. > > It might give a false sense of security more than anything. > > On the contrary, I have been in precisely the situation where it would > help, which is why I wrote this patch. ;-) > > I'm not sure what false sense of security this would give. The option > clearly does not prevent removal of files system-wide. It prevents > removal of those files in the blacklist during a particular invocation > of `rm'. What's confusing about that? It's not a replacement for > backups; it's purely there, in my mind, as a convenient safeguard > against accidental removal of files. After all, do you really want to > hunt down that file and restore it? An option that saves you anywhere > from 10 minutes to hours figuring out what you deleted and restoring > it seems like a big win. > > > Between rm -I, immutable flags, ACLS and backups > > one is suitably covered. > > These all have problems that I explained in the original email and > above. > > I'd like to mention with respect to the usefulness of the patch that > the perl wrapper, safe-rm, seems popular enough to prove its > usefulness. It's been in Ubuntu's universe repository as far back as > Intrepid. Integrating the functionality with coreutils allows us to > improve on it in a number of ways. > > Thanks for your consideration, > Dan > >
