Comment 3 for bug 687295

On 14.09.2013 11:56, Tim Ruffing wrote:
> As I'm also affected, I'd be happy to contribute a patch for the solution with the hash. However, I'm not totally sure if I understand everything correctly on the mailing list.
> - I assume that it suffices to store a hash of the manifest file locally. Am I right?

actually we would need a relation of two hashes, as Ken wrote:

>> A a hash of an encrypted form of the local manifest compared to a hash of
>> the remote manifest might be the way to go on this.

> - Is adding a LOCAL file with the hash in the cache directory really invasive, i.e., would it involve changes in other parts of the code or break backwards compatibility? If the local file is not there, we could easily fall back to the current implementation.

works for me.. maybe one text file per backup chain (full,inc0,inc1....) with lines per file

> - If adding a local file is invasive, maybe adding the hash value to the local filename could be a neat trick (might be simpler than a hash neutral line).

too much hassle and not backward compatible

eventually not only the manifest, but also the other remote files should be compared to ensure the integrity of the remote/local files to be used as basis of the new incremental.

..ede/duply.net