Re: [Duplicity-talk] "Warning, found the following local orphaned signature files"

[edgar . soldin]

On 05.02.2011 17:55, Kenneth Loafman wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 10:45 AM, <address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>> 
> wrote:
> 
>     i keep on  getting this warning and can connect it to
>     
> http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~duplicity-team/duplicity/0.6-series/view/head:/duplicity/collections.py#L150
>  
> <http://bazaar.launchpad.net/%7Eduplicity-team/duplicity/0.6-series/view/head:/duplicity/collections.py#L150>
>     where 'new-sig's are left in the local archive dir.
> 
>     what is this about? why shouldn't they be deleted?
>     everything is fine when i delete them. i remove-older-than 3M and backup 
> --full-if-older-than 1M.
> 
> 
> That came from Bug #497243 https://bugs.launchpad.net/duplicity/+bug/497243
> 
> The question now:  Is that the right fix for the problem?
> 

Where except of remove-* commands is set.delete called? I don't seem to 
understand

CITE->
since 0.6.06 the removal of old stuff is less stringent, and old signatures are 
supposed to stay around - but BackupSet.delete()
hasn't been changed: it does, indeed, remove files of type new-sig - whereas 
the rest of delete() doesn't remove new-sig stuff
from the remote archive anymore.
<-CITE

the 'rest of delete()' part. In my case the new sigs are deleted remotely. If 
they weren't I wouldn't get the orphaned message. Having written that, I double 
checked, and wtf he is right.. the corresponding *.gpg files are still on the 
backend together with the full signatures gpg files from the other bug.

Is it possible that collections.py:get_filenames() does not list these? 

..ede