Re: [Duplicity-talk] Integrity check

[László Monda]

I'd personally only use the integrity-check action on my local
machine.  I think it's the only missing thing for duplicity to be
feature complete.  Even if integrity checking is possible with
scripts, it'd be very convinient and intuitive to use this action
directly from duplicity.

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:37 PM,  <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> But you would catch that during a verify run, wouldn't you? In essence you
>>
>
> yeah, but with unnecessary computing and too much output.
>
>> simply propose to leave away the last step of verify, right? Should be
>> simple
>> enough to implement...
>>
>
> exactly my point ...
>
>> Decrypting it on the remote really is silly but gpg --verify would have
>> its
>> uses.
>>
>
> unfortunately my tests showed that a encrypted signed gpg file can't be
> verified by 'gpg --verify'. This only works for detached signatures. You
> actually have to decrypt it for that purpose. And therefor you will need
> your most valuable gpg data (keys,passphrases) on the remote machine. Again.
> I wouldn't put them on a non trusted system.
>
>> It may not necessarily a slow rather than an expensive line. Think
>> non-flatrate
>>
>
> The reason why I started thinking of it was ... Let's say I want to remove
> the incrementals of the last month and start with a fresh set of
> incrementals against my old full. Don't I want to make sure that this old
> full is still intact? So actually I think integrity checking is done seldom
> but needed in some cases.
>
>
> ... ede
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Duplicity-talk mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
>



-- 
Laci  <http://monda.hu>