From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ng0 Subject: Re: Removing the attic package Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2016 13:10:39 +0000 Message-ID: <874m5vvmi8.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is> References: <20160904021256.GA21539@jasmine> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55669) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgXC7-0006mZ-DG for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Sep 2016 09:10:44 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgXC4-0001uY-U0 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Sep 2016 09:10:42 -0400 Received: from mithlond.libertad.in-berlin.de ([2001:67c:1400:2490::1]:55273 helo=beleriand.n0.is) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgXC4-0001tr-C6 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Sep 2016 09:10:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160904021256.GA21539@jasmine> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Leo Famulari , guix-devel@gnu.org Leo Famulari writes: > The Attic backup program [0] has a serious problem, and I think we > should consider removing our package of it. > > The problem is that Attic appears to be unmaintained since it was forked > as "Borg". For almost 11 months, there has been no response from the > Attic maintainer to a bug that unrecoverably corrupts the backup > repository when the disk becomes full [1]. Of course, this situation is > not acceptable for "backup" software. > > Debian has stopped packaging Attic in response [2]. > > At the very least, I think we should add a strong warning to the package > description and synopsis. > > [0] > https://attic-backup.org/ > > [1] > https://github.com/jborg/attic/issues/356 > > [2] > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=802619 > There has been no update since 2015. Can the current status of the bug (solved? unsolved? wontfix? work in progress?) be requested from the upstream developer(s)? Otherwise the bug reads like we should include it in our package description, pointing out that it is currently limited to 15GB backup (if that's what this was about, I did not read all of it). -- ng0 For non-prism friendly talk find me on http://www.psyced.org