[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Duplicity-talk] Anyone using duplicity with box.net (webdavs)?
From: |
edgar . soldin |
Subject: |
Re: [Duplicity-talk] Anyone using duplicity with box.net (webdavs)? |
Date: |
Mon, 05 Mar 2012 21:09:37 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 |
Just got fresh, because i read that the listbody is not mandatory.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4918.txt
" A client may choose not to submit a request body. An empty PROPFIND
request body MUST be treated as if it were an 'allprop' request. "
Works for me with box.net and german mediencenter.telekom.de .
Interestingly the automatic creation of the backup folder on the first access
leads to a
File "/usr/lib/python2.6/httplib.py", line 960, in getresponse
raise ResponseNotReady()
ResponseNotReady
a second run succeeds then. my guess it that the backend shouldn't fail here
but retry because obviously the folder was created successfully.
@Ken & all: Could you please check how your backends react on empty listbodies.
My take here is, if it is empty there is less to misinterpret for each and
every implementation.
..ede/duply.net
On 01.03.2012 17:37, Kenneth Loafman wrote:
> No objections here. I'll test against rsync.net <http://rsync.net> and if
> that works too, we have a fix.
>
> ...Ken
>
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Edgar Soldin <address@hidden
> <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
>
> ken, any objections trying it without allprop? ..ede
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Duplicity-talk] Anyone using duplicity with box.net
> <http://box.net> (webdavs)?
> Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:35:47 +0100
> From: address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>
> Reply-To: Discussion of the backup program duplicity <address@hidden
> <mailto:address@hidden>>
> To: Discussion of the backup program duplicity <address@hidden
> <mailto:address@hidden>>
>
> On 29.02.2012 15:52, Kenneth Loafman wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 8:25 AM, SanskritFritz <address@hidden
> <mailto:address@hidden> <mailto:address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>>>
> wrote:
> >
> > 2012/2/29 Kenneth Loafman <address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>
> <mailto:address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>>>:
> > > Too bad there is not a client for Webdav like NcFTP that has gone
> to this
> > > trouble already.
> >
> > Well, there are davfs [1] working and wdfs [2] not working whith
> > box.net <http://box.net> <http://box.net>, I just tested it.
> >
> > [1] http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/davfs2
> > [2] http://noedler.de/projekte/wdfs/
> >
> >
> > [1] may be the route to go. We could use the FTP backend as a model.
> I'm not inclined to fight issues related to non-standard implementations of
> the servers, thus NcFTP was chosen, so we'll need a volunteer to tackle this
> problem.
> >
>
> disagreed, these are fully fledged fuse based filesystems, which can
> easily be set up today and used via file:// backend already.
>
> the guy who found the solution for box.net <http://box.net> claims that
> it chokes on <D:allprop/> .. if that's the case we could easily set up a
> --webdav-options switch that allows switching it off.
> on the other hand, we currently don't need it anyway (maybe for the
> enhanced upload plausability) but as far as i can see is <D:allprop/> not
> really necessary as servers should at least return the list of files (urls)
> and more properties at will, if no <D:allprop/> was defined.
>
> shouldn't we try the route without <D:allprop/> first?
>
> ..ede
>
> _______________________________________________
> Duplicity-talk mailing list
> address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
>
>