[CentOS] how to prevent files and directories from being deleted?

Wed Oct 4 12:39:30 UTC 2017
Mark Haney <mark.haney at neonova.net>

On 10/04/2017 08:22 AM, Gary Stainburn wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 October 2017 12:54:44 Mark Haney wrote:
>> Sorry, but if you have to use packages that don't originate from CentOS
>> and they do that, then I wouldn't use them. Period.  I'd compile from
>> source before I used something configured that way.
> This perspective to some extent employs cutting your nose of dispite youre
> face.  Before Packages were introduced, everyone compiled from source. That
> was a pain, and a long process, especially when you had dependancies that you
> also had to compile.  Packages eased this process but kept the dependancy
> issue.
If you think using non-standard packages that put /persistent/ items in 
non-persistent locations like /var/run in production environments is far 
more acceptable than compiling from source because of package management 
'benefits' then (to me anyway) you're lazy and dangerous with critical 
data.  My statement still stands.  Let me be clear:


The fact you'd rather bandaid a problem (in production no less) than 
follow proper standards or compile from source to avoid said bandaid 
would be a fire-able offense in any IT shop I've ever worked at.
> Package managers got round (mostly) both the dependancy problem and updating
> too. The problem with package maintainers not keeping up to date shows that
> this still isn't perfect.
> However, if you go back to compiling from source then you lose all of these
> benefits.
> Thankfully I do not earn my keep by watering lawns.  I do not believe that
> this is acceptable, but by the same token I have to earn my keep and that
> involves having working production servers and services.
> I have managed to get round this problem in the past through manually doing
> the same function as systemd-tmpfiles. It is a small price to pay to have a
> working, (relatively) up to date server.
The fact you find this acceptable means you're either the only 
'qualified' (and even that is subject to doubt) person there, or your 
management is too ignorant to understand the danger.  I'm sorry, but in 
no way is this acceptable for production level servers. I'm sure, if you 
asked 100 IT people you'd get 100 to agree with me.  Being flippant with 
production servers is never acceptable.

Of course, most people refuse to listen to logic and reason because they 
are convinced they are right despite evidence (and best practices over 
40+ years of Unix) to the contrary.

I'll end this by saying, I hope the production servers you have don't 
provide critical services that could jeopardize the lives of people.  
I'd ask who you work for, to make sure I avoid them at all costs, but 
I'm not sure I'd be told.

Again, denying 40+ years of Unix design and  best practices because 
you're too lazy to manage compiling from source to avoid denying those 
practices is truly one of the most astonishing things I've ever seen in 
the 25 years I've been in IT.

Then again, maybe I'm old-fashioned when I expect to do something and do 
it right rather than half-ass it.

Mark Haney
Network Engineer at NeoNova
919-460-3330 option 1
mark.haney at neonova.net