Re: [Duplicity-talk] Mis-detecting deleted files during incremental

[Simeon Miteff]

On 02/28/12 02:08, Kenneth Loafman wrote:
<snip>
>     >> Both are available here:
>     >>
>     >> http://pastebin.com/Sv9daYaL
>     >>
>     >> With this run I killed it before completion, but it does actually
>     succeed in
>     >> creating the faulty incremental backup if I leave it alone. By
>     faulty I mean
>     >> that I obviously can't restore files (from the full+inc chain)
>     that duplicity
>     >> detected as deleted - but weren't deleted.
>     >
>     > I see you are using an exclude filelist.  Did it change between
>     the full and
>     > incremental backups?  Files which are included in an earlier
>     backup but excluded
>     > from a later one are treated as if they had been deleted.
> 
>     Nope, no change. Just to be sure, I checked the modification time on
>     the exclude
>     filelist, it is before the full backup.
> 
> 
> When you upgraded, did you upgrade via the tarball?, was the original
> installed from a repository?

Both were installed from ubuntu binary packages. The full backup and
first incremental were made with 0.6.13 from ubuntu/natty.

I then upgraded to 0.6.17 from ubuntu/precise, moved the incremental
volumes+manifest+signatures out of the target directory, and re-ran the
incremental, but it behaved the same way.

> The log file indicates an error that was in the previous version, so I'm
> suspicious that you are picking up older code from a previous install
> (repo installs to a different dir than the tarball, sometimes).

Is it worth nuking the full backup and starting over with 0.6.17 (or
0.6.18 from the tarball)?