Mailman 3 February 2023 - Bit-dev

New Debian package description
by c.buhtz＠posteo.jp 21 Feb '23

21 Feb '23

Dear folks, I would like to rewrite Debians package description of Back In Time. That descriptions appear in the apt repository, in the package tracker etc. [1] If you see a non-English description this comes from Debians own translation team. We don't have to take care of it. They are automatically notified when the original text is updated. That is the current text: Description: simple backup/snapshot system (common files) Back In Time is a framework for rsync and cron for the purpose of taking snapshots and backups of specified folders. It minimizes disk space use by taking a snapshot only if the directory has been changed, and hard links for unmodified files if it has. The user can schedule regular backups using cron. I suggest to use the Wiki section on GitHub [2] to develop a new version of this text and to keep track of modifications in the Wikis history unit we have consense. I just offered a new version. A bit shorted and simpler. The original source is in a GitLab repository of Debian Salsa instance [3]. The descriptions for the CLI and the Qt package are separated in that file. I can make an PR against that repo when we have consense about a new version. Kind Christian [1] -- <https://packages.debian.org/en/sid/backintime-common> [2] -- <https://github.com/bit-team/backintime/wiki/Work-in-progress:-Rewrite-Debia…> [3] -- <https://salsa.debian.org/jmw/pkg-backintime/-/blob/debian/debian/control>

1 0

FYI about vagrant: Hashicorp public gpg key must be updated (when using apt) - NO_PUBKEY AA16FCBCA621E701
by BiT dev 13 Feb '23

13 Feb '23

If you get an error message like this $ sudo apt update ... Err:2 https://apt.releases.hashicorp.com focal InRelease The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY AA16FCBCA621E701 ... W: An error occurred during the signature verification. The repository is not updated and the previous index files will be used. GPG error: https://apt.releases.hashicorp.com focal InRelease: The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY AA16FCBCA621E701 W: Failed to fetch https://apt.releases.hashicorp.com/dists/focal/InRelease The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY AA16FCBCA621E701 you have to install the new gpg public key according to the official installation instructions: https://www.hashicorp.com/official-packaging-guide In my case (Ubuntu 20.04) this did work: wget -O- https://apt.releases.hashicorp.com/gpg | gpg --dearmor | sudo tee /usr/share/keyrings/hashicorp-archive-keyring.gpg I don't know how to verify for sure (100 %) if this new key is not compromised (eg. by a hacked web site) since there is no other reliable channel to find the expected fingerprint (hints welcome :-)

1 0

Oops: Release v1.3.3 shows "1.3.3-dev" with "backintime --version"
by BiT dev 04 Feb '23

04 Feb '23

I think our released version 1.3.3 does still show the "dev" postfix when asking for the version number via "backintime --version": https://github.com/bit-team/backintime/blob/8495f9dc3953343a0352bb3ffbdcfab… I think we currently have no automated release process that fixes (or at least validates) the version number in the config.py file, haven't we?

2 3

RfC: Maintain separate "package maintainers NEWS" file for each release?
by BiT dev 02 Feb '23

02 Feb '23

As lesson learned from our current rollout of v1.3.3 I suggest to maintain a separate "Package Maintainer NEWS" file which shall contain pkg maintainer relevant changes like - changed dependencies - installation path changes - unexpected file and folder renamings etc. Any opinions (also on the best file name for this)? Optionally we could maintain a list of known BiT packages incl. a link to the pkg maintainer web sites in our wiki or FAQ to direct users with packaging-related issues to the according responsible pkg. maintainer. I have asked for community support to compile such a list in one of our issues: https://github.com/bit-team/backintime/issues/1401#issuecomment-1412915694

2 2