From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38829) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fxy3m-0000TP-Ki for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Sep 2018 13:27:15 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fxy3f-0004y1-4f for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Sep 2018 13:27:12 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:43321) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fxy3a-0004sR-55 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Sep 2018 13:27:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fxy3Z-0003Fk-Ue for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Sep 2018 13:27:01 -0400 Subject: [bug#32303] [PATCH] gnu: Patch duplicity with --ignore-mdc-error. Resent-Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 13:26:20 -0400 From: Leo Famulari Message-ID: <20180906172620.GA2362@jasmine.lan> References: <20180729154152.11296-1-mail@cbaines.net> <20180807165649.GA917@jasmine.lan> <87ftzakul8.fsf@cbaines.net> <20180822210523.GA5079@jasmine.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="G4iJoqBmSsgzjUCe" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180822210523.GA5079@jasmine.lan> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Christopher Baines Cc: 32303@debbugs.gnu.org --G4iJoqBmSsgzjUCe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 05:05:23PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: > A few days ago, I sent an email to > requesting clarification on how this affects Duplicity. I think my > message is still waiting for moderation but hopefully it goes through. The Duplicity project clarified the effect of this change on the integrity of the backup archives: "Duplicity does a hash of the entire file so the MDC is duplication of effort. [...] You are still protected by the hash stored in the manifest." [0] Based on that, I think the disabling of GnuPG's integrity check is not that important in this case. [0] https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/duplicity-talk/2018-09/msg00005.html --G4iJoqBmSsgzjUCe Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAluRYzwACgkQJkb6MLrK fwg9ZQ/+K0rz+npaKZlVLJnzywlBWVAxSWkJ6wI9WG+XJCj0A1h+rVMzCT0AbWSw 2tLzXYIUogbGf/Gffpb/N7WbewVfOS4/LETb1u01zSoVbWXFSUUsFPpdAAqs/qfI Far5VEmRfVq79Yht+cIGQGEnAQBYZu2gtkGyWIK4KfWd7WiM1YJh/Vvajhorph8m Jwfic3QY3GNpmL3OxFDjJHStawBFRXSStTk3/iLSQTB6Rsox6ewY6vI48rXr3Lfg /v2h83K7oa8015u7jpLuef+K7Co6Xx2kcrW7skK2eOPaRLcdxl1FO7v1Vkw4LJyz wcYkJZLZZc+/Ej7fxlr3f4/qHVN4POQ+R/w63lXhhi6Bh3CkYDSV8ZzlbNXbut61 AWZbzLvaZsYW12/f4kEoiJFW4725pB+lfy8adzMut10ySwTKBty9UnFRCPypl45A QJQAhtyKejae94WhsyOu95RLnACH9Sej5FTamGNx510xCccaz48Ca11tPTNEs3J5 oyqnhC4QBq2PoHhOd4gPwNDdxUggzi4nuZPhNIAnuURVghRKMIzIS7nes1L77azB JBP64a0kgzMpAM/QW4Sfw1hV0dHotTZz0tQ6TR2QHZhf4DPFQTwRlN7EPOfpxAgb cly+W0FW/UG6A/oCulNexezqA09+C1mNWVoZcRD9U8yyQxHdBfY= =aoGF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --G4iJoqBmSsgzjUCe--