duplicity-team team mailing list archive

[Aaron Whitehouse <question678917@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Question #678917 on Duplicity changed:
https://answers.launchpad.net/duplicity/+question/678917

    Status: Open => Answered

Aaron Whitehouse proposed the following answer:
Please see the mailing list threads starting here:
https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/duplicity-talk/2015-08/msg00064.html
https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/duplicity-talk/2015-09/msg00006.html

Since then, it looks as though the rsync-like increment has been implemented:
https://sourceforge.net/p/dar/feature-requests/122/

There was also a reference to dar here:
https://answers.launchpad.net/duplicity/+question/150909

The short answer is that all the main contributors seemed in favour of
the format. We should probably remove that page, as it does keep coming
up.

Separate to how good the format is, there is the question of using the format in duplicity. While I am generally in favour of trying, I have a few hesitations: 
* The main problem here is that, while Dar seems to be regularly updated, the python bindings are not. 
* While the format seems good from a quick look, I saw at least one project move from Dar to duplicity because the output files could be managed with 'normal' GNU/Linux tools. Dar files are clearly less common than tar files.
* If duplicity fully embraces Dar, duplicity would essentially become a wrapper adding things like the backends. In many ways that would be good, but it does mean that we would lose the ability to fix bugs etc in this project (and python-only contributors would be unlikely to be able to work on Dar itself).

-- 
You received this question notification because your team duplicity-team
is an answer contact for Duplicity.