Re: [Bit-team] Beta release: 0.9.99beta5

might be able to fix a thing or two. The next few months will not be really better though so expect not too much from my side. However things might calm down around March or so, then I might have some time again to really do some stuff for version 2.0 :-) Cheers, Bart 2009/12/18 Dan >

Re: [Bit-team] [Bug 466088] Re: BackInTime karmic package missing depends on menu

OK, thanks for the information, most probably we will stick to gksu then... 2009/12/7 Jonathan Wiltshire > On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 01:06:57PM -0000, Bart de Koning wrote: > > Upstream we use gksu, it is changed to su-to-root in the ubuntu packages, > > however it seems to

[Bit-team] [Bug 493838] Re: Support encryption

*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 482170 *** https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/482170 ** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 482170 Add encryption -- Support encryption https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/493838 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Back In Tim

Re: [Bit-team] [Bug 466088] Re: BackInTime karmic package missing depends on menu

Upstream we use gksu, it is changed to su-to-root in the ubuntu packages, however it seems to be a very neat solution for a common encountered problem. Are there any strong arguments not to switch upstream, eg what is the availability of su-to-root on other distributions, like Suse, or Fedora, or i

Re: [Bit-team] [Bug 478429] Re: Backup ends when a file > 4gb should be saved on a FAT32 filesystem

Well it supports FAT32, that is not the problem. We state clearly though that FAT32 does not support hardlinks, so BiT will use much more space on a FAT32 drive than on Ext2/3/4 or NTFS. The 4 GB limit of FAT32 is another characteristic of FAT32 why we think that it is not recommended to use as a B

[Bit-team] [Bug 493558] [NEW] Update snapshot button causes confusion

hot. I checked the backup destination drive and verified the files have not been updated. I do not have an automated backup scheduled. Thanks! J. ** Affects: backintime Importance: Low Assignee: Bart de Koning (bratdaking) Status: Confirmed -- Update snapshot button causes confusion h

[Bit-team] [Bug 493558] Re: Update snapshot button causes confusion

med ** Changed in: backintime Importance: Undecided => Low ** Changed in: backintime Assignee: (unassigned) => Bart de Koning (bratdaking) -- Update snapshot button causes confusion https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/493558 You received this bug notification because you are a member o

[Bit-team] [Bug 492730] Re: [enhancement] search

** Changed in: backintime Importance: Undecided => Wishlist -- [enhancement] search https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/492730 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Back In Time Team, which is subscribed to Back In Time. Status in Back In Time: New Bug description: it wo

[Bit-team] [Bug 492090] [NEW] Optional disable of versioning for files above a certain size

Public bug reported: Hi and thanks for this great piece of software. What I miss in BackInTime is the possibility to disable the versioning system for files with a size higher than a set limit. Let's say, every files > 500MB are only stored in the last snapshot, and are deleted from the former

[Bit-team] [Bug 477603] Re: backintime hangs w/o network presence of previously backedup network share

In that way we can detect network shares indeed, but how do we detect unattached network shares that are scheduled to be backupped, not in the least to assure hardlinking between snapshots in which that network share is present? -- backintime hangs w/o network presence of previously backedup netw

Re: [Bit-team] [Bug 485879] Re: BiT only creates 3 days of backups

No problem :-) I did already not understand why it was deleting your snapshots before it figuring out which ones to keep 2009/12/3 oernii > GOD, now how could this happen? I downloaded the RPM and thought it to > be the latest. I'm sorry. > > -- > BiT only creates 3 days of backups > https://bug

Re: [Bit-team] [Bug 478429] Re: Backup ends when a file > 4gb should be saved on a FAT32 filesystem

I agree, but it should not stop when somebody still uses FAT32, and it encounters a file > 4Gb... 2009/12/3 Dan > FAT is not a good choice for BIT because it hoes not support hardlinks. > > -- > Backup ends when a file > 4gb should be saved on a FAT32 filesystem > https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs

Re: [Bit-team] Include other snapshot folders

exludes, so a : in between, and it needs complete paths till the location were the snapshots are located, so eg. /var/backup/backintime/D011/bart/1. Than it works, btw. you will notice that there is already one path there, to the location were the snapshots used to be. So what I planned to do to have

Re: [Bit-team] [Bug 485879] Re: BiT only creates 3 days of backups

Indeed, sorry I overlooked that in your earlier post... 2009/12/2 Dan > There one thing I just noticed: you are using 0.9.20. > > Version 0.9.26 > * Fix a bug in smart-remove algorithm ( > https://bugs.launchpad.net/backintime/+bug/376104) > > You need to upgrade version. > > ** Changed in: back

[Bit-team] [Bug 491645] [NEW] Web interface for bit

Public bug reported: I would like to see an optional web interface to BIT that allowed browsing of the snapshots, and the copy function (but not restore). I would want this to be secured in some way. Here is a scenario where this would be useful (and how I would use it): Network share running

[Bit-team] [Bug 406092] Re: Deleted Files are stored in snapshots forever

Since we removed the Schedule per Included folder option, I added the --delete-excluded again. This should solve the ghost folders, however I need to verify that still ** Changed in: backintime Status: Confirmed => In Progress -- Deleted Files are stored in snapshots forever https://bugs.

[Bit-team] [Bug 406092] Re: Deleted Files are stored in snapshots forever

** Changed in: backintime Assignee: (unassigned) => Bart de Koning (bratdaking) -- Deleted Files are stored in snapshots forever https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/406092 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Back In Time Team, which is subscribed to Back In T

[Bit-team] [Bug 453169] Re: (enhancement) backup to samba share, sshfs, ftp etc

** Changed in: backintime Status: New => Confirmed ** Changed in: backintime Importance: Undecided => Wishlist -- (enhancement) backup to samba share, sshfs, ftp etc https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/453169 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Back In Time Team,

[Bit-team] [Bug 485879] Re: BiT only creates 3 days of backups

oernii can you post your logs for today, we should now be able to determine whether there is something going wrong or not? ** Changed in: backintime Assignee: (unassigned) => Bart de Koning (bratdaking) ** Changed in: backintime Status: New => Incomplete -- BiT only creates

[Bit-team] [Bug 477579] Re: [enhancement] Don't backup over certain size

*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 478429 *** https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/478429 ** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 478429 Backup ends when a file > 4gb should be saved on a FAT32 filesystem -- [enhancement] Don't backup over certain size https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/47

[Bit-team] [Bug 482931] Re: Backup slows down system, doesn't throttle I/O

*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 378656 *** https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/378656 ** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 378656 Add support for "ionice" -- Backup slows down system, doesn't throttle I/O https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/482931 You received this bug notification b

[Bit-team] [Bug 489380] Re: BIT must use ACL/xattr only if rsync support them

** Changed in: backintime Importance: Undecided => Medium -- BIT must use ACL/xattr only if rsync support them https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/489380 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Back In Time Team, which is subscribed to Back In Time. Status in Back In Time:

[Bit-team] [Bug 378656] Re: Add support for "ionice"

The patch is not yet in the trunk, therefore I changed it back to in progress, also with respect to the last comment... ** Changed in: backintime Status: Fix Committed => In Progress ** Changed in: backintime Importance: Undecided => Medium -- Add support for "ionice" https://bugs.lau

[Bit-team] [Bug 478429] Re: Backup ends when a file > 4gb should be saved on a FAT32 filesystem

** Changed in: backintime Importance: Undecided => Medium ** Changed in: backintime Importance: Medium => High -- Backup ends when a file > 4gb should be saved on a FAT32 filesystem https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/478429 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Back I

[Bit-team] [Bug 477603] Re: backintime hangs w/o network presence of previously backedup network share

OK I won't set it to fixed then! We have to think about another solution then. The problem mainly is how to recognise a mounted network share from a normal folder, before testing whether it is mounted or not... (same procedure for other mounted devices btw) ** Changed in: backintime Importanc

[Bit-team] [Bug 478689] Re: [enhancement] Install from source in user's space not possible

** Changed in: backintime Importance: Undecided => Wishlist -- [enhancement] Install from source in user's space not possible https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/478689 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Back In Time Team, which is subscribed to Back In Time. Status in

[Bit-team] [Bug 479178] Re: [enhancement] Possibility to select manual frequency for every x hours

** Changed in: backintime Importance: Undecided => Wishlist -- [enhancement] Possibility to select manual frequency for every x hours https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/479178 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Back In Time Team, which is subscribed to Back In Time. S

[Bit-team] [Bug 464267] Re: Backup fails silently when target has wrong file-permissions

Because the folder is now checked on forehand this bug should have been solved. If not please open it again! Cheers, Bart ** Changed in: backintime Status: New => Fix Committed ** Changed in: backintime Importance: Undecided => High -- Backup fails silently when target has

[Bit-team] [Bug 471284] Re: Brief logging of BiT Backups in the BiT Tasklist

** Changed in: backintime Importance: Undecided => Wishlist -- Brief logging of BiT Backups in the BiT Tasklist https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/471284 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Back In Time Team, which is subscribed to Back In Time. Status in Back In Time:

[Bit-team] [Bug 474307] Re: BackinTime does not maintain hardlinks

** Changed in: backintime Importance: Undecided => Low -- BackinTime does not maintain hardlinks https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/474307 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Back In Time Team, which is subscribed to Back In Time. Status in Back In Time: Fix Committed

[Bit-team] [Bug 455149] Re: backing up root directory fails

** Changed in: backintime Status: Confirmed => Fix Committed -- backing up root directory fails https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/455149 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Back In Time Team, which is subscribed to Back In Time. Status in Back In Time: Fix Committ

[Bit-team] [Bug 455149] Re: backing up root directory fails

** Changed in: backintime Importance: Undecided => High -- backing up root directory fails https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/455149 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Back In Time Team, which is subscribed to Back In Time. Status in Back In Time: Fix Committed Bug d

[Bit-team] [Bug 422132] Re: default exclude patterns for users

For the moment I just added .gvfs to the default excludes. If there appears to be a need for an extra warning message concerning the .gvfs, I will implement it. ** Changed in: backintime Status: In Progress => Fix Committed -- default exclude patterns for users https://bugs.launchpad.net/

Re: [Bit-team] Release 1.0

-removes it because there was less than 1 Gb free... Another thing: isn't it a good idea to move the battery option from advanced to the normal options? It is not really a difficult option and every layman could understand what is meant with that checkbox. Cheers, Bart 2009/12/2 Dan > Hi, &g

Re: [Bit-team] [Bug 441628] Re: BAckintime crash when screen locked

Hey Dan, What was the main problem, and how did you solve this? Cheers, Bart 2009/12/2 Dan > ** Changed in: backintime > Status: Triaged => Fix Committed > > -- > BAckintime crash when screen locked > https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/441628 > You received this

Re: [Bit-team] Release 1.0

as well (it would make the new directory structure awfully messy if you would allow that)? Cheers, Bart 2009/12/1 Dan > Hi, > > > " > >> 2. In settings for the shapshots path there should be "Advanced options" >> to force host/user/profile. >> > I

bit-team@lists.launchpad.net

*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 415848 *** https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/415848 ** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 415848 Files or folders containing a & will not display correctly -- can't exclude directory named with & https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/489319 You received

Re: [Bit-team] Release 1.0

2009/12/1 Dan > Hi, > > I agree for the beta release. > There are 2 repositories on BIT website: testing & release. We ca put the > beta in testing. > > OK! Good idea! > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Bart wrote: > >> Hey all, >> >> I sup

Re: [Bit-team] Release 1.0

nfig entry. But that could be a version 2.0 feature... Actually I think I support your removal, as it would definitely reduce the complexity of the program... Cheers, Bart 2009/11/30 Richard Bailey > Hi Dan, > > I looked at the ionice option when I first came to BiT, but I didn't

Re: [Bit-team] [Bug 487785] Re: Cannot open BiT anymore

*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 409130 *** https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/409130 In the next release this bug is fixed. For your information it tries to store the size in an int. However that does not fit for files bigger than I thought 2.3 Gb, and the program crashes. (I changed it into a

Re: [Bit-team] [Bug 485879] Re: BiT only creates 3 days of backups

the last one from November) Sorry these things take a while to figure out ... Cheers, Bart 2009/11/24 oernii > Okay, here it is from today, as expected smart-delete deleted almost > everything (see 'ls -l' attached at the end): > > Back In Time > Version: 0.9.20 &g

Re: [Bit-team] [Bug 485879] Re: BiT only creates 3 days of backups

You could attach them here, however wait until tomorrow, then it will start keeping the snapshots for last week, that is why... Cheers, Bart 2009/11/22 oernii > I can send you the logs from 7.10.2009 until 21.11.2009. I should have > them in my email. Or should I attach them here? > &

Re: [Bit-team] [Bug 485879] Re: BiT only creates 3 days of backups

I should make this one a FAQ, because it is a mistake made often. It only deletes snapshots that do not belong to one of the categories. At a certain point a snapshot older that 2 days belongs to the week before, so will be kept as the last snapshot from last week. Most often that occurs on snapsho

Re: [Bit-team] [Bug 447841] Re: Soft links in snapshots should not be browseable

I was thinking about this one: os.path.islink(*path*)¶Return True if *path* refers to a directory entry that is a symbolic link. Always False if symbolic links are not supported.But your one might indeed offer the possibility to distinguis

Re: [Bit-team] [Bug 485879] Re: BiT only creates 3 days of backups

So the rest of your backups is removed, because they are not yet from last week... 2009/11/20 Dan > Smart remove rules: >* keep all snapshots from today and yesterday >* keep one snapshot for the last week and one for two weeks ago >* keep one snapshot per month for all previous mont

[Bit-team] Merges

the last merge... Cheers, Bart ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~bit-team Post to : bit-team@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~bit-team More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

[Bit-team] Fwd: [Question #90967]: interrupted backup

in the beginning in the meanwhile -> solving the time-stamp issue)... Especially in the case of large backups and to take them for the first time, this could be handy. Cheers, Bart -- Forwarded message -- From: Bart Date: 2009/11/21 Subject: Re: [Question #90967]: interrup

Re: [Bit-team] [Bug 430646] Re: Hardlink issues in mounted ssh filesystems

Ah that is the reason it always failed in my tests... 2009/11/17 Dan > The problem with --link-dest is that the files must have the save > rights/user/group. I experienced some problems for file systems without > full rights/owners support (like NTFS). To create hard links I use cp > -al which s

Re: [Bit-team] [Bug 447841] Re: Soft links in snapshots should not be browseable

I could be wrong, but all copied symlinks point outside the snapshots or not? (they always link as /home/user/target, or do they use ../target?) There is a os python thingy that tests for symlinks, so it should be quite easy to set up a test... 2009/11/18 Dan > If the soft link is relative and i

[Bit-team] [Bug 451268] Re: neither "backintime -b" nor "backintime --backup-job" work when run by cron

*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 441628 *** https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/441628 ** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 441628 BAckintime crash when screen locked ** Changed in: backintime Status: New => Confirmed ** Changed in: backintime Importance: Undecided => Hi

Re: [Bit-team] [Bug 482931] Re: Backup slows down system, doesn't throttle I/O

The icon should give a state which file it is handling at the moment... About the schedule per included folder: no you do not want to try it, because it is still broken in the 0.9.26 version. I asked it because it causes much higher loads that is why. 2009/11/15 John Baptist > Certainly, the he

[Bit-team] [Bug 378388] Re: rsync syntax or usage error (code 1), returns 256

*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 396436 *** https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/396436 ** This bug is no longer a duplicate of bug 396436 newest version doesnt work with ubuntu hardy ** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 396436 newest version doesnt work with ubuntu hardy -- rs

[Bit-team] [Bug 447841] Re: Soft links in snapshots should not be browseable

I think we should disable softlink browsing, as they do not link to a position within the snapshot, but browse to a position outside of the snapshot giving the impression that that spot is also present in the snapshot while it is not. At least it should give a warning ** Changed in: backintime

Re: [Bit-team] [Bug 406092] Re: Deleted Files are stored in snapshots forever

accomplish, so he issue is not that important to fix immediately. However we need to come up with a solution sooner or later... Maybe we should verify whether the folders in the snapshots all belong to the included folders (of all schedules)... Cheers, Bart 2009/11/13 Dan > ** Changed

Re: [Bit-team] [Bug 482931] [NEW] Backup slows down system, doesn't throttle I/O

)? Cheers, Bart 2009/11/15 John Baptist > Public bug reported: > > When BIT is actively copying data, the system is significantly less > responsive because of the disk load. BIT should be more polite. It > should use ionice to set its I/O to a lower priority and it should use a >

Re: [Bit-team] [Bug 406092] Re: Deleted Files are stored in snapshots forever

Well these are the best bugs off course: ghost bugs that just fix themselves But this bug is still valid as I found a way to create ghost files in your snapshots as I described above... However if your problem reoccurs, please notify us again! 2009/11/12 Andreas > After having tried to analyse

[Bit-team] [Bug 480391] Re: [enhancement] load existing backup settings

closely related to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/backintime/+bug/480272 -- [enhancement] load existing backup settings https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/480391 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Back In Time Team, which is subscribed to Back In Time. Status in Back In Tim

[Bit-team] [Bug 480391] Re: [enhancement] load existing backup settings

Actually you do not have to restore the whole config file, you just have to select the snapshot folder you used have and you will get all your snapshots back. However point taken, we will add it to the wishlist ** Changed in: backintime Importance: Undecided => Wishlist -- [enhancement] load

[Bit-team] [Bug 480399] Re: [enhancement] different destinations for different sources

** Changed in: backintime Status: New => Fix Committed ** Changed in: backintime Importance: Undecided => Wishlist -- [enhancement] different destinations for different sources https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/480399 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Back In

[Bit-team] [Bug 480272] [NEW] [enhancement] return to default settings option

Public bug reported: It would be good if it was possible to restore default values with one push on a button (and a question afterwards), especially for the excluded folders and patterns ** Affects: backintime Importance: Wishlist Status: New ** Changed in: backintime Importance

[Bit-team] [Bug 455658] Re: [enchansement] It woluld be great to track all changes to selected files

Nice idea, however changes more or less the whole concept... What to do then with files that you change a lot, how would implement a sort of smart-remove option not to clog your harddrive with all kinds of unnecessary versions... But I agree with you that this concept sounds nice... -- [enchans

[Bit-team] [Bug 455658] Re: [enchansement] It woluld be great to track all changes to selected files

** Changed in: backintime Status: Incomplete => Confirmed ** Changed in: backintime Importance: Undecided => Wishlist -- [enchansement] It woluld be great to track all changes to selected files https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/455658 You received this bug notification because you are a

[Bit-team] [Bug 422132] Re: default exclude patterns for users

As we changed the default not to exclude all hidden files, we can expect a lot of problems concerning .gvfs Should be excluded by default and perhaps should be given some extra attention, like question box when trying to remove this pattern Therefore I also changed the importance to high! f

[Bit-team] [Bug 480180] Re: Unpredictable behavior when BIT cannot write config file

** Changed in: backintime Status: New => Confirmed ** Changed in: backintime Importance: Undecided => High -- Unpredictable behavior when BIT cannot write config file https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/480180 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Back In Time Team

[Bit-team] [Bug 406092] Re: Deleted Files are stored in snapshots forever

Hey this bug is turning into two: - the .gvfs problem -> lets continue that one in the default excluded folders bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/backintime/+bug/422132 - the problem of removing an included folder what leads to rudimentary ghost folders in the snapshots

Re: [Bit-team] Changing importance bugs

/+members> . The person or team responsible for bug management. So sorry Dan you are the one that should do it. On the bug overview page you can change the supervisor by clicking on the yellow button behind it... Cheers, Bart 2009/11/10 Dan > I don't see it. > I setup the maintaine

Re: [Bit-team] [Bug 406092] Re: Deleted Files are stored in snapshots forever

u can add additional arguments there. (would be good to add an option debug or something...) If you could have a thorough look, that would be great, if you find something keep us posted... Cheers, Bart 2009/11/9 Andreas > I can confirm the bug, however it only shows up under specific > cond

Re: [Bit-team] Changing importance bugs

I do not have a clue. Isn't it possible to do that on the bugs page? Or on the projects overview page? When I am logged in I do not see any ! on those pages, but that might have to do with that I am not the maintainer of the project... Cheers, Bart 2009/11/9 Dan > Hi, > > It se

Re: [Bit-team] Changing importance bugs

Hey, Dan can you set the team to be the bug-supervisor, we might be able to set the importance of bugs again. Or am I the only one who cannot change it settings? Cheers, Bart 2009/11/6 Bart > Yep now we do not have -H in our rsync commands, so hardlinks in the > original files are brok

[Bit-team] KDEsu

to solve the kdesu vs kdesudo problem, but apparently hte kdesu version went missing in the latest trunk Cheers, Bart ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~bit-team Post to : bit-team@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~bit

Re: [Bit-team] BIT Authors

Ok with me, you can put my email in there, however if you mention the bit-team emailaddress that might not be necessary. Gmail spam filters are good, but they might not be that good :-) Thanks! Cheers, Bart 2009/11/2 Dan > Hi, > > Since you work on the project I would like to a

Re: [Bit-team] new snapshot location

A fast look pointed out that there was probably only one slight mistake in the kde version: a can_backup without a profile_id. So it might work now too, however I cannot test it right now... Cheers, Bart 2009/10/21 Bart > Hey guys, > > I took quite a bunch of evening hours, however

[Bit-team] new snapshot location

s the lack of profile_id's suddenly give problems when you use the profile_id in the folder :-)). What do you think about it? Cheers, Bart ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~bit-team Post to : bit-team@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launc