[Duplicity-talk] Re: Announcing Déjà Dup

[Kenneth Loafman]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:50:20 -0400, Michael Terry wrote:

> Another question: Is there a last-known-good duplicity version I should
> depend on?  That is, are some versions of duplicity bad (maybe because
> of a security hole, maybe because of a command line syntax change)?

A major command line syntax change was done in v0.4.4.RC4 (2007/10/26).  
You probably should check for that as a minimal version.  In 0.4.9 the 
rsync URL format was corrected.  See the CHANGELOG for details.

BTW, the interface looks nice and simple.  It could have been very 
complicated and put folks off.  I'll be happy to test it when you get the 
other interfaces going.

As to progress metering, I'm thinking of a socket interface where you 
would pass in the filename of the socket and duplicity would write 
filenames and other info out.  We'll need to agree on a format, but it 
should not be difficult to implement.

And yes, as Peter has said, duplicity needs a lot of work, especially on 
error handling and par2 for protection of backups.  I beginning to see 
the need for a complete restructuring to better handle errors, but the 
muse has not hit on that one yet.

Welcome aboard.

...Ken