Resolves open question 2. One big disk holding both the app data and its
snapshots is what most people actually have, and two facts make it cheap:
reconcile() already chowns CONTAINERS_DIR and BACKUPS_DIR to the same
container user, so there is no permission negotiation; and sibling dirs
on one filesystem don't nest, so §3 admits them today unchanged.
The registries stay separate — that was always about trust and lifecycle,
not hardware — so §1's non-goal is reworded rather than dropped.
One hard rule survives: same drive yes, nested never. A storage location
containing a backup repo is a recursive-inclusion trap, and §3's nesting
refusal already covers both directions. What needs work is the error —
pointing storage at /mnt/bigdisk when /mnt/bigdisk/backups exists fails
the empty-dir rule, and the message must suggest a subdirectory rather
than saying "not empty", because that is the likely first attempt.
Shared fate gets the §6.1 treatment: durable badge on both locations and
a line in the backup summary, stated accurately rather than moralised —
a same-drive backup still covers accidental deletion, bad updates and
ransomware; what it doesn't survive is the disk dying. Also names the
compounding case, since nobody pictures it: a shared drive that is also
removable takes the apps and the restore path away at the same moment.
Checks: free space becomes per-device (two locations on one filesystem
draw from one pool, so a growing repo can starve the apps), plus a new
shared-device check that warns and never refuses.
Notes that this makes the naming collision worse and suggests the
resolution — a Disks view with one row per device showing which roles
LibrePortal has on it, registries separate underneath.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
5491455290