From chris at qwirx.com Wed Dec 10 23:43:12 2014 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 23:43:12 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Box Backup] Patch for raidfile test on NetBSD 4/5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Jose Luis, On Sun, 11 Apr 2010, Jose Luis Rodriguez Garcia wrote: >>> The problem is that in NetBSD 4/5 the readdir and openddir functions >>> are called in libc: __readdir30 and __closedir30. >>> readdir and closedir exist for compatibility with NetBSD 3 and before. >>> >>> There was a change in the ABI between the 3 and 4 version for enable >>> 64 bits types. Thanks for the patch! I encountered the same problem while testing Box Backup on NetBSD 6, and I have committed your patch. Sorry for the very long delay in getting back to you. It appears that we have very few NetBSD users. I hope that this has not broken compatibility with 32-bit NetBSD distributions. I have not checked it. Cheers, Chris. -- _____ __ _ \ __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Ruby/Perl/SQL Developer | \__/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU : free your mind & your software | From chris at qwirx.com Fri Dec 12 14:45:53 2014 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 14:45:53 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Box Backup] [Boxbackup-dev] current trunk Message-ID: Hi Kai, On Thu, 11 Dec 2014, Kai Liebenau wrote: > after your refactoring the Method SyncDirectory the compiling fails under > Win32. The failure is in the file BackupClientDirectoryRecord.cpp in Line > 615. > > if(file_st.st_dev != link_st.st_dev) > boxbackup\bin\bbackupd\backupclientdirectoryrecord.cpp(615): error C2065: > 'link_st': undeclared identifier > > The identifier link_st is declared at line 241 and i think the link_st > identifier must be adding at the method SyncDirectoryEntry. Is this okay? Yes, you're right, thanks for catching that! Cheers, Chris. -- _____ __ _ \ __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Ruby/Perl/SQL Developer | \__/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU : free your mind & your software | From chris at qwirx.com Sun Dec 21 11:16:20 2014 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 11:16:20 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Box Backup] Planning to release 1.0 Message-ID: Hi all, I would like to declare that the next release will be numbered 1.0. Now that I'm using Box Backup myself on my laptop, I'm more confident about its stability, and my ability to support it. And it would hopefully help to boost adoption if we declare that stability to the world. Would anyone object to this? I know that some important features are still missing, such as snapshots and backups to Amazon S3, but these still require major work to complete, and I don't feel the need to delay the 1.0 release for years while I find time here and there to implement them. The release should hopefully happen in the next few weeks, as soon as I get all tests passing on Windows, NetBSD and OpenBSD (and maybe SmartOS). Thanks to James O'Gorman once again for providing the virtual machines for testing Box on different platforms! Cheers, Chris. -- _____ __ _ \ __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Ruby/Perl/SQL Developer | \__/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU : free your mind & your software | From cam.lafit at azerttyu.net Sun Dec 21 11:40:34 2014 From: cam.lafit at azerttyu.net (cam.lafit at azerttyu.net) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 12:40:34 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Planning to release 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi It's a great news. I'm not more user box backup since long months :/ But project need to have more popularity. Provide a 1.0 version can help to this. For information my use now are : -* seafile to personnal backup -* bacula and duplicity to server backup I plan to reuse boxbackup to replace duplicity. Thanks a lot Km From orzel at freehackers.org Wed Dec 24 02:33:02 2014 From: orzel at freehackers.org (orzel at freehackers.org) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 03:33:02 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Planning to release 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <549A25DE.2080707@freehackers.org> On 21/12/2014 12:16, Chris Wilson wrote: > I would like to declare that the next release will be numbered 1.0. Now > that I'm using Box Backup myself on my laptop, I'm more confident about > its stability, and my ability to support it. And it would hopefully help > to boost adoption if we declare that stability to the world. > > Would anyone object to this? Of course not. No release in years is my main concern about boxbackup. The project looks dead.. Thomas -- Thomas Capricelli http://www.freehackers.org/thomas/ From jan.haastrecht at gmail.com Tue Dec 30 20:52:49 2014 From: jan.haastrecht at gmail.com (Jan Haastrecht) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 21:52:49 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Planning to release 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54A310A1.6040501@gmail.com> Chris Wilson wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to declare that the next release will be numbered 1.0. Now that > I'm using Box Backup myself on my laptop, I'm more confident about its > stability, and my ability to support it. And it would hopefully help to boost > adoption if we declare that stability to the world. > > Would anyone object to this? I object to this. AFAICT, you still have a lot of bugs open. I don't see the point of releasing a 1.0 with known correctness bugs. Next to that, you have little infrastructure to even test a wide variety of use cases (even though open-source stress tests for backup systems exist now). As such, calling it 1.0 would be inappropriate. I am not discounting that you put in a lot of effort, but effort doesn't always translate into a high quality program. As a data point, I have never been able to do a proper backup using MIPS hardware on a resource constrained platform (it was not OOM), and since I don't believe that your code triggers compiler bugs (it's not that complex), I am going with the hypothesis that you probably rely on some UB in various places, which in turn reduces my trust in your software (I don't currently use it, because of this lack of quality, and I was waiting for you to demonstrate quality (that's what other authors of backup software do)). As long as you cannot demonstrate that your code survives torture tests, there is no reason to assume that it works. FYI, I am _not_ interested in any discussion about this. I don't believe that you should release software which has flaws in them, similarly, I don't think you should tell anyone about software which doesn't do something useful correctly in 100% of the cases, as opposed to 99.9% of the cases (especially when it comes to backup software). You might have a different view on this, and you are free to hold that view, but please don't waste time on sharing it. Either take my advice into account (and you will likely get more users) or don't. Jan