Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: bug or not: --archive-dir and full backup

[Jan-Wijbrand Kolman]

Thomas Seliger wrote:
> Interesting what different people want from the --archive-dir option ;).
> So how is --archive-dir supposed to work?

I'm not experienced enough with duplicity yet to really "want"
something from --archive-dir. However, the current behavior (0.4.3) is
confusing (to me):

The man page states the sig file are kept locally with the
--archive-dir option, but I'm not sure what the intention is regarding
having sig files at the remote and *as well*.

Still, duplicity pushes the sig file to the remote end anyhow. Then,
with an subsequent incremental backup it warns you that it found an
orphaned sig file (on the the remote end).

This seems contradicting behavior to me, at least if it comes to
providing feedback to me as a user. And hence my question about the
intention of the option.

> So maybe this goes also into a feature request direction. I like local AND 
> remote signatures. Duplicity uses the local sigs for faster operation, but 
> also stores encrypted signatures on the remote end (and tries to use remote 
> sigs automagically when it does not find local sigs). So in case of a 
> disaster (lost local signatures), I can use the remote signatures.
>
> Although I understand that keeping local AND remote signatures creates 
> transportation overhead, which you might want to avoid. Of course there is 
> always the option to add another switch like --local-sigs-only ;).

This explanation (or feature request, for that matter :) makes most
sense to me. I *think* this behavior is basically what duplicity has
now (0.4.3), if only the warning would be gone...

kind regards,
jw

-- 
Jan-Wijbrand Kolman