[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Duplicity-talk] different behaviour according to LC_ALL value
From: |
edgar . soldin |
Subject: |
Re: [Duplicity-talk] different behaviour according to LC_ALL value |
Date: |
Wed, 8 Mar 2017 16:08:08 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1 |
good guess, but to me it looks like exactly this long standing issue
https://bugs.launchpad.net/duplicity/+bug/687295
..ede/duply.net
On 08.03.2017 16:04, Kenneth Loafman via Duplicity-talk wrote:
> Yes, the translations are either not complete or have issues with spelling,
> so matching against gpg responses is wrong.
>
> There is a bug to replace the use of text responses with numeric responses
> that we have not addressed yet.
>
> ...Thanks,
> ...Ken
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Raphael Bauduin via Duplicity-talk
> <address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a very strange behaviour of duplicity. When LC_ALL=en_US, it works
> fine, when LC_ALL=fr_FR, it doesn't.
> Is there an explanation of this behaviour?
>
> address@hidden .cache]# LC_ALL="en_US" /bin/duplicity inc --encrypt-key
> 'F747CAB9' /backups rsync://rsync/duplicity/
> Local and Remote metadata are synchronized, no sync needed.
> Last full backup date: Wed Mar 8 09:50:38 2017
> --------------[ Backup Statistics ]--------------
> StartTime 1488981015.77 (Wed Mar 8 14:50:15 2017)
> EndTime 1488981020.62 (Wed Mar 8 14:50:20 2017)
> ElapsedTime 4.84 (4.84 seconds)
> SourceFiles 13568
> SourceFileSize 13623047487 (12.7 GB)
> NewFiles 0
> NewFileSize 0 (0 bytes)
> DeletedFiles 0
> ChangedFiles 0
> ChangedFileSize 0 (0 bytes)
> ChangedDeltaSize 0 (0 bytes)
> DeltaEntries 0
> RawDeltaSize 0 (0 bytes)
> TotalDestinationSizeChange 372 (372 bytes)
> Errors 0
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> address@hidden .cache]# LC_ALL="fr_BE" /bin/duplicity inc --encrypt-key
> 'F747CAB9' /backups rsync://rsync/duplicity/
> Les métadonnées locales et distantes sont déjà synchronisées. Aucune
> synchronisation nécessaire.
> Date de la dernière sauvegarde complète : Wed Mar 8 09:50:38 2017
> GPGError: GPG Failed, see log below:
> ===== Begin GnuPG log =====
> gpg: chiffré avec une clef RSA de 2048 bits, identifiant BDABF623, créée
> le 2017-03-02
> « ci (ci encryption key) <""> »
> gpg: échec du déchiffrement : Pas de clef secrète
> ===== End GnuPG log =====
>
> The french output says:
>
> "
> gpg: encrypted with an RSA key of 2048 bits, id BDABF623, created on
> 2017-03-02 (march)
> gpg: decryption failed, no secret key.
> "
>
> BDABF623 is the id of the subkey with id F747CAB9.
>
> This is a server on which I just installed duplicity. I managed to do a
> full backup, then I tried
> /bin/duplicity --full-if-older-than 15D --encrypt-key 'F747CAB9'
> /backups rsync://rsync/duplicity/
>
> but it failed (not finding the secret key, which it should not need).
> After some changing the environment to have
> the output in english, I was surprised to see it work fine.
>
> Here is some more info:
>
> # duplicity --version
> duplicity 0.7.11
>
> # gpg --version
> gpg (GnuPG) 2.0.22
> libgcrypt 1.5.3
> Copyright (C) 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Rb
>
> _______________________________________________
> Duplicity-talk mailing list
> address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
> <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Duplicity-talk mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
>
- [Duplicity-talk] different behaviour according to LC_ALL value, Raphael Bauduin, 2017/03/08
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] different behaviour according to LC_ALL value, Kenneth Loafman, 2017/03/08
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] different behaviour according to LC_ALL value,
edgar . soldin <=
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] different behaviour according to LC_ALL value, Kenneth Loafman, 2017/03/08
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] different behaviour according to LC_ALL value, edgar . soldin, 2017/03/08
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] different behaviour according to LC_ALL value, Kenneth Loafman, 2017/03/08
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] different behaviour according to LC_ALL value, Raphael Bauduin, 2017/03/09
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] different behaviour according to LC_ALL value, edgar . soldin, 2017/03/09