Re: [Duplicity-talk] Incremental backup of files with changed data but unchanged timestamp

[Nate Eldredge]

On Sun, 3 Aug 2014, Kenneth Loafman wrote:

> I've seen packages that have the timestamp reflect the version number, so
> he's probably right, it would be the packager doing the dirty trick.

There were only a couple packages for which this happened.  I don't think 
they're intentionally using timestamps based on the version number. 
Rather, I understand the Ubuntu maintainers upload their source to a 
central compile farm which compiles it for all the different architectures 
(including i386 and amd64).  This presumably happens in parallel on 
different machines, so it's entirely plausible that the i386 and amd64 
compiles happened to create some files within 1 second of each other.

Anyway, thanks for the replies.  I hope to have a chance to read them 
carefully and start sorting through the source soon.

For my current purposes, it would be fine if duplicity makes trivial 
deltas for all the unchanged files (I presume this is what happens if you 
touch a file to update the timestamp but don't actually change its data). 
And it is fine if it takes a long time.  I will probably just run it in 
"ignore timestamps" mode once, since I don't expect this to happen again.

--
Nate Eldredge
address@hidden