[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity
From: |
Kenneth Loafman |
Subject: |
Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1] |
Date: |
Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:27:57 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105) |
Not sure that A was the right choice, but we're past that now. It's
easily removed if you just remove the check in ftpbackend.py, so maybe a
patch could be issued to remove the check, or maybe just issue a warning
instead.
I tend to err towards caution in handling errors. A segfault may not be
generated if the memory modified is not executed, but could produce bad
data output instead, so unless I know the version has been fixed, and
not just compiled differently, I would not really trust it.
...Ken
address@hidden wrote:
> Thanks for this overview ... very interesting in every detail indeed ....
>
> Regarding your comments ...
>
> A) If ncftp 3.2.0 raises an error, but not always, why blocking by
> version and not by issuing the segfault or whatever error? E.g. in the
> case of the ftplicity user from the bug list... He used
> ftplicity/duplicity happily until now the new version refuses to work
> with a obviously working ncftp version.
>
> B) You explained that a version string is compared, so the question on
> put with list-files is obsolete :)
>
> Eventually, I agree totally ... Dogmatic Rules are for people that
> refuse development. Usually they don't last long .... Said that, why
> force somebody to upgrade, if there is only a chance of an error
> occuring but no certainty. This is like trying to keep children from
> danger. Impossible ;)
>
> ... ede
>
> PS: I really love the phrase of your french teacher :))
>
>
> Kenneth Loafman wrote:
>> address@hidden wrote:
>>
>>>> I have a suspicion there may be differences in the distro's, some with
>>>> bug fixes, some not.
>>>>
>>> How does duplicity detect the faulty version? Or does it detect the
>>> fault itself?
>>>
>>
>> The fault itself would be a segfault, so no, we don't do that. It runs
>> the ncftp command and looks for the version string. Simplicity.
>>
>>
>>> But then, why does the list command issue a ftp put command?
>>>
>>
>> You'll have to explain that one. It should not.
>>
>>
>>> ..qeustions over questions ..ede
>>>
>>
>> Back in the dawn of history, duplicity used ftplib.py for direct access
>> to ftp. This was impossible to maintain because the maintainers of
>> ftplib.py preferred standardization over functionality. They treated
>> the RFC's as gospel and anyone who's been around ftp long enough grows
>> to know that ftp servers are only 'mostly' standard. I chose NcFTP
>> because I had never had it fail to work on any server I targeted. I
>> chose functionality over standardization. A note - do a 'strings' on
>> NcFTP and you will find where they detect the problem FTP servers and
>> this is something any ftp client needs to do.
>>
>> The 2nd incarnation of the ftp backend used the ncftpget/put/ls
>> utilities rather than the ncftp command directly. After much success
>> with pexpect driving ssh, and many problems with various versions of the
>> ncftp utilities, I decided to drive ncftp directly with pexpect and not
>> use the utilities for anything at all. I made the mistake of thinking
>> that if ncftp was so solid, then the utilities would be solid as well.
>>
>> Thus the 3rd incarnation of the ftp backend. This one still has some
>> issues, I'm sure, but those are being ironed out. Unless someone can
>> prove to me that they have a better functioning ftp server or library, I
>> think we have finally found the functionality and robustness we need
>> going forwards.
>>
>> I'm getting really tired of fixing bugs against a flaky protocol that
>> should have died years ago. It wastes too much time. It's one of those
>> things like French that I don't like to mess with. As my French teacher
>> said on the day after it was too late to drop, "Throw away the rules,
>> now we're going to learn French.". FTP is like that.
>>
>> ...Ken
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Duplicity-talk mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Duplicity-talk mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1], edgar . soldin, 2009/03/12
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1], Kenneth Loafman, 2009/03/12
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1], edgar . soldin, 2009/03/12
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1], Kenneth Loafman, 2009/03/12
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1], edgar . soldin, 2009/03/12
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1], Kenneth Loafman, 2009/03/12
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1], edgar . soldin, 2009/03/12
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1],
Kenneth Loafman <=
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1], edgar . soldin, 2009/03/12
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1], Kenneth Loafman, 2009/03/12
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1], edgar . soldin, 2009/03/12
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1], Kenneth Loafman, 2009/03/12
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1], edgar . soldin, 2009/03/12
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1], Kenneth Loafman, 2009/03/12
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1], edgar . soldin, 2009/03/12
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1], Kenneth Loafman, 2009/03/12
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1], edgar . soldin, 2009/03/12
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1], Kenneth Loafman, 2009/03/12