On 11/29/2014 03:54 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> 2. fsck.s3ql not being able to fix the local database
This one is more interesting. The traceback looks as if the backend (aka
S3) reports two objects with the same name (which I think should be
impossible). Since S3QL is using the object names as pri
On 11/29/2014 03:54 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> 1. mount.s3ql not coping well with a failed internet connection (a "no
> route to host" failure, to be precise, it copes quite well with other
> failures)
This one is actually a bug in python-dugong. I have just fixed this in
https://bitbucket.org/nik
On 11/29/2014 01:36 PM, Shannon Dealy wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2014, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>
>> On 11/29/2014 09:49 AM, Shannon Dealy wrote:
>>> Package: s3ql
>>> Version: 2.11.1+dfsg-1
>>> Severity: critical
>>> Justification: causes serious data loss
>>>
>>> Dear Maintainer,
>>>
>>> While running
On Sat, 29 Nov 2014, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
On 11/29/2014 09:49 AM, Shannon Dealy wrote:
Package: s3ql
Version: 2.11.1+dfsg-1
Severity: critical
Justification: causes serious data loss
Dear Maintainer,
While running rsync to backup data to an s3ql file system mounted from Amazon's
S3 services,
On 11/29/2014 09:49 AM, Shannon Dealy wrote:
> Package: s3ql
> Version: 2.11.1+dfsg-1
> Severity: critical
> Justification: causes serious data loss
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> While running rsync to backup data to an s3ql file system mounted from
> Amazon's
> S3 services, the internet connection f
Package: s3ql
Version: 2.11.1+dfsg-1
Severity: critical
Justification: causes serious data loss
Dear Maintainer,
While running rsync to backup data to an s3ql file system mounted from Amazon's
S3 services, the internet connection failed, resulting in the following
error(s) from rsync:
rsync:
6 matches
Mail list logo
