[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 behaviour (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 contradictting behaviour 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 behaviour is basically what duplicity has 
now (0.4.3), if only the warning would be gone...

kind regards,
jw

--
Jan-Wijbrand Kolman