The proposal to merge lp:~horgh/duplicity/copy-symlink-targets-721599 into lp:duplicity has been updated.
Description changed to: Hello, I recently started using duplicity. I have a directory with many symlinks in it. I was hoping to be able to back the data up while dereferencing the symlinks as that is easier for my use case. I see there is a bug report requesting such behaviour: https://bugs.launchpad.net/duplicity/+bug/721599 I understand why by design it would be acceptable to not dereference symlinks, but I think it can be useful to provide a flag to do it. My solution is to add a flag called --copy-links. rsync has a flag with this name so that is why I picked the name. This is rsync's brief description for it: "--copy-links transform symlink into referent file/dir". I found that it was sufficient to change the os.lstat() call in path.py to os.stat() when this flag is enabled so that duplicity no longer actually sees symlinks. I did wonder if this is an acceptable place for it though, as path.py seems fairly low level to be worried about globals. But I saw elsewhere in this file and class that we access globals. I've found that backup and restore behaviour works fine in manually tests with this update. If I run a second backup without the flag given, then the backed up version updates to hold the symlink, and vice versa. I've not updated any documentation or anything yet as I thought I should get feedback whether this will be acceptable, and whether this approach is okay. Please let me know if you have any thoughts on this or improvements I can make. Thank you for your time! For more details, see: https://code.launchpad.net/~horgh/duplicity/copy-symlink-targets-721599/+merge/312438 -- Your team duplicity-team is subscribed to branch lp:duplicity. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~duplicity-team Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~duplicity-team More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
