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

[Chris McGinley]

I'm a big fan of the --dry-run switch also and use it with rsync for sanity checks as well. --force is a dangerous switch in any command and should be used with caution.

On Wednesday, May 6, 2015 10:23 AM, Russell Clemings <address@hidden> wrote:

FWIW, this almost sounds like a documentation issue to me.

At http://duplicity.nongnu.org/duplicity.1.html it says:

duplicity [restore] [options] [--file-to-restore <relpath>] [--time time] source_url target_directory

He says he used:

duplicity --file-to-restore www/foobar.com/blah.html s3://amazon.com/foobar /

He should (IMO) have used:

duplicity --file-to-restore www/foobar.com/blah.html s3://amazon.com/foobar /www/foobar.com/blah.html

If my analysis is correct, then maybe some explanation of what "target_directory" means would help. Along with a clear warning about the possible consequences of using "force" in this context.

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:34 AM, <address@hidden> wrote:

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


_______________________________________________
Duplicity-talk mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk

--

===============================================
Russell Clemings

<address@hidden>
===============================================

_______________________________________________
Duplicity-talk mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk