Re: [Duplicity-talk] Seeding a remote backup

[Andrew Kohlsmith (mailing lists account)]

On 2012-06-14, at 11:02 AM, address@hidden wrote:
> that's not what i suggested:
> meant was do new incrementals against the old full to effectively shorten the 
> chain artificially hence minimizing the chance of having a defect volume 
> killing backups after it.

Oh I understand now; I didn't think you could do that and have Duplicity 
automatically figure that out. That's a very interesting workaround!

> anyway, this is a workaround and no solution of course. also it does not 
> protect you from the full getting corrupted, so you additionally need that as 
> a copy in a safe place.

It'd be nice if you could tell Duplicity to do something to that effect… 
incremental-chain-length or some such…

-A.