Re: Concerning delete-by-moving-to-trash on free systems

[Tassilo Horn <tassilo@member.fsf.org>]

David De La Harpe Golden <david@harpegolden.net> writes:

Hi!

>> Nice!  Why do you fallback to ~/.local/share/ in
>> move-file-to-trash-freedesktop.  With the predicate you already
>> checked that XDG_DATA_HOME is set.  If it's not set in
>> move-file-to-trash-freedesktop I'd expect an error.
>>
>
> XDG_DATA_HOME is not guaranteed to be set in nonetheless
> freedesktop.org compliant environments (it's not set on my desktop
> running the generally-highly-fd.o XFCE4!):

I see.  I looked at it too briefly.

> If it's actually okay for emacs to use the freedesktop-style trashcan
> by default rather than the builtin emacs "fallback" trashcan support,
> then the move-file-to-trash--freedesktop-p test could be dropped and
> the patch slightly simplified.

I'd say it's more than ok.  As I mentioned in my original posting the
current fallback trashcan loses data.  That's much more problematic than
moving the files to a real trash can which cannot be accessed
appropriately with emacs ATM.

> Note that it's really only one side of comprehensive trashcan support
> (the writing side).  While it's not urgent (since most people
> interested in fd.o trashcans can presumably use their desktop
> environment file manager's trashcan interface),

Exactly.  I like moving to trash because seldomly but sometimes I delete
something which I shouldn't delete.  The main point is that it's still
there, no matter if I have to fire up some other app to restore it.

> for the reading side, someone might conceivably want a dired that's
> trashcan-aware, so that you could browse the traschcan in a slightly
> extended dired view that offers a restore option (and at least with
> the metadata-available fd.o-style trashcan (and probably some others)
> it'd also be possible for dired to offer restorations of files when
> you're browsing a directory that has ex-members in the trashcan...).

That would be fantastic.

> That's generally more complicated e.g. while my patch for _writing_ to
> trashcan avails of the option not to use per-volume trashcans in the
> relevant spec, _reading_ from trash properly should probably not
> disregard the existence of per-volume trash.

Ok, let's add that to the 23.2 TODO list. ;-)

Anyway, my main point is (if I didn't mention it often enough): Don't
release 23.1 with an option which sounds great but loses data.

Bye,
Tassilo