duplicity-talk
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Duplicity-talk] [Duplicity-team] Python 2.6.0 testing


From: edgar . soldin
Subject: Re: [Duplicity-talk] [Duplicity-team] Python 2.6.0 testing
Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 19:29:41 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0

On 18.05.2014 14:24, Michael Terry wrote:
> That first one is "expected" in the sense that I see it.  But so far only 
> with box.com <http://box.com>, and not, for example, that address@hidden 
> <mailto:address@hidden> account.  If you try other providers, does 
> backendtest pass?

for the heck of it (i don't see it as a provider connected ;) as it all 
works/worked properly still in 0.6.x

here's address@hidden:

./testing/manual/backendtest takes long but has nothing to complain.

manual duplicity works on full, collection-status but fails on incremental call

Registering (mktemp) temporary file 
/tmp/duplicity-QJqqq2-tempdir/mktemp-Rgzfez-2
Retrieving /demo/duplicity-testing/duplicity-full.20140518T171448Z.manifest.gpg 
from WebDAV server
WebDAV GET /demo/duplicity-testing/duplicity-full.20140518T171448Z.manifest.gpg 
request with headers: {'Connection': 'keep-alive', 'Authorization': 'Basic 
ZGVtbzpkZW1v'}
WebDAV data length: 4
WebDAV response status 200 with reason 'OK'.
Backtrace of previous error: Traceback (innermost last):
  File "/srv/www/vhosts/host/dupl-trunk.webdav-0.7/duplicity/backend.py", line 
367, in inner_retry
    return fn(self, *args)
  File "/srv/www/vhosts/host/dupl-trunk.webdav-0.7/duplicity/backend.py", line 
543, in get
    "from backend") % util.ufn(local_path.name))
 BackendException: File /tmp/duplicity-QJqqq2-tempdir/mktemp-Rgzfez-2 not found 
locally after get from backend

Attempt 1 failed. BackendException: File 
/tmp/duplicity-QJqqq2-tempdir/mktemp-Rgzfez-2 not found locally after get from 
backend


> 
> The second error there looks similar, in the sense that a get() call failed 
> to download the file.  I've seen bugs filed against 0.6.x that look similar.
> 

don't believe it to be a lingering bug from 0.6
this is reproducable only with 0.7 branch against an account that i can use 
properly w/ 0.6.x , reproducably ;P

..ede



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]