Comment 1 for bug 385495

Here's some history from the previous tracker:

Kenneth Loafman <email address hidden> writes:

> Kenneth Loafman <email address hidden> writes:
> >
> > Ross Patterson <email address hidden> writes:
> >
> > > Follow-up Comment #2, bug #25542 (project duplicity):
> > >
> > > I was thinking of attempting this but since I'm cutting my teeth
> > > on this and Duplicity seems to have a pretty unique layout for a
> > > python project, I'd love some guidance.
> > >
> > > It looks like breaking up the signature file while writing it to
> > > the remote should be mostly a matter of duplicating the relevante
> > > bits of the "while not at_end:" loop logic from
> > > duplicity-bin:275(write_multivol) to the FileobjHooked.to_remote
> > > method at duplicity/dup_temp.py:169(to_remote). Does that sound
> > > correct?
> > >
> > > What I'm having a harder time finding in the code is the right
> > > place to hook into for re-assembling split signatures on restore
> > > or inspection of the remote archive. Can anyone offer any
> > > pointers on that?
>
> > Follow-up Comment #3, bug #25542 (project duplicity):
> >
> > Wait until 0.6.0 is out and it will be a lot easier. The sig and
> > manifest file handling has changed a fair bit, so the split and
> > reassembly will be a lot easier.
> >
> > Plus, I've got a version of file_naming.py that handles volume
> > numbers in sig files, just not released yet.
>
> Follow-up Comment #7, bug #25542 (project duplicity):
>
> I read comment 2 and you were right about where to break it up, in
> dup_temp.py. I have not thought about where to reassemble it, but it
> would probably be best to look at the place it's downloaded into a
> temp. Catch it there and reassemble into a single file. That way you
> won't have to mess with collections.py.
>
> Since the ~/.duplicity directory is expected to be around between
> backups now, the only reason to download it from remote is if that dir
> has been destroyed somehow, so even a special case might do it, kind
> of a preparatory step before duplicity begins. The local copy would
> still be one file, assuming it was still there.
>
> I really have not thought about this much. Backing up to IMAP is such
> a special use case for duplicity that it just has not been on my
> mental radar.