This fix is maybe not perfect yet, but maybe better than nothing.
A comment by Ernest0x (see https://github.com/jborg/attic/issues/232 ):
@ThomasWaldmann your patch did the job.
attic check --repair did the repairing and attic delete deleted the archive.
Thanks.
That said, however, I am not sure if the best place to put the check is where
you put it in the patch. For example, the check operation uses a custom msgpack
unpacker class named "RobustUnpacker", which it does try to check for correct
format (see the comment: "Abort early if the data does not look like a
serialized dict"), but it seems it does not catch my case. The relevant code
in 'cache.py', on the other hand, uses msgpack's Unpacker class.
faq about redundancy / integrity
compression is optional
having borg installed on backup server is optional (but faster)
cygwin installation tipps
do not document passphrase encryption mode example, use keyfile mode
the usage of some py.test features in the previous locking changesets somehow broke the test environment.
it seems to help to point py.test to some specific package or module (and not just invoke "py.test" without arguments).
it was silently failing until recently. and it can't work the way it is on RemoteRepository.
it's still active (and now even really working) for the (local) Repository tests.
the old code blows up with an integer OverflowError when the cache file goes beyond 2GiB size.
the new code just reuses the Repository implementation as a local temporary key/value store.
still an issue: if the place where the temporary RepositoryCache is stored (usually /tmp) can't
cope with the cache size and runs full.
if you copy data from a fuse mount, the cache size is the copied deduplicated data size.
so, if you have lots of data to extract (more than your /tmp can hold), rather do not use fuse!
besides fuse mounts, this also affects attic check and cache sync (in these cases, only the
metadata size counts, but even that can go beyond 2GiB for some people).
I merged some pull requests of other developers into borg and now added
them to the developers / contributors list, with permission.
In general, feel free to add yourself to the list if you contributed something
to borg - just make a pull request including your addition to AUTHORS.
That's way easier for me than having to ask whether you want to be in there
and how precisely... - just write your entry yourself!
it seems like there is currently no bureaucracy required, freenode web site says group registration is suspended.
i also asked on the freenode channel, they said just make sure you are right here and use it. so we do that now.
