Re: [Duplicity-talk] duplicity and partial rsync transfers

[Eliot Moss]

On 8/31/2011 10:46 AM, address@hidden wrote:
> On 31.08.2011 15:33, Eliot Moss wrote:
> > On 8/31/2011 8:04 AM, address@hidden wrote:

> the manual states that you need --partial to activate resuming. --partial-dir 
> is merely mentioned as a 'better way' to store the part files. are you sure it 
> resumes without --partial set?

It actually works with --partial-dir alone; that is, --partial-dir
implies --partial.  However, setting the environment variable
RSYNC_PARTIAL_DIR does *not* imply --partial.  However, if the
env var is set and the user specifies --partial (but not
--partial-dir) then it is as if the user said
--partial=dir=${RYNC_PARTIAL_DIR}.

> what is your rationale against --rsync-options='', it can do the same but much 
> more if somebody intents to. a hint in the manpage can tell people to consider 
> --rsync-options='--partial' and we are set.

No deep objections -- it may be the simplest way to allow people
to do this (and maybe there are other useful things they could do
as well).

Possible objections are:
1) possibly dangerous
2) requires change to the duplicity command line interface
   (though using an env var such as DUPLICITY_RSYNC_OPTIONS
   would get around that -- could be looked at just in the
   rsync back-end)
3) There's no harm in using --partial-dir all the time, as far
   as I can see. (We might want to extend 'cleanup' to remove
   any partial transfer info.)

> it would e.g. allow users to override the rsh with their own value.

I think RSYNC_RSH does that already, but I take your general point.

> any contribution is welcome.

Ok, I'll see what I can cook up, perhaps taking the env var
approach since it makes only small changes and only to the
rsync back end (and the documentation, of course).

Regards -- Eliot