duplicity fails with "'ascii' codec can't decode byte" error

[Sebastian Bator]

I am using DejaDub for backing up some folders to Ubuntu one. Since the Update to Quantal the backup fails before even asking for the password, i. e. presumably before the connection to Ubuntu One is established.

DejaDup gives the following Traceback:

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/bin/duplicity", line 1404, in <module>
    with_tempdir(main)
  File "/usr/bin/duplicity", line 1397, in with_tempdir
    fn()
  File "/usr/bin/duplicity", line 1273, in main
    sync_archive(decrypt)
  File "/usr/bin/duplicity", line 1077, in sync_archive
    + "\n" + "\n".join(local_missing))
UnicodeDecodeError: 'ascii' codec can't decode byte 0xc3 in position 17: ordinal not in range(128)

Please contact me if you need further information

Sebastian Bator

ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 12.10
Package: duplicity 0.6.19-0ubuntu2
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 3.5.0-17.28-generic 3.5.5
Uname: Linux 3.5.0-17-generic x86_64
ApportVersion: 2.6.1-0ubuntu6
Architecture: amd64
Date: Tue Oct 30 11:48:26 2012
InstallationDate: Installed on 2011-02-23 (614 days ago)
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 10.10 "Maverick Meerkat" - Release amd64 (20101007)
MarkForUpload: True
SourcePackage: duplicity
UpgradeStatus: Upgraded to quantal on 2012-10-22 (8 days ago)

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users.

[Sebastian Bator (eremit7)]

In my opinion this is not a duplicate of Bug #989496:
 1. The exception is thrown in a different part of duplicity
(sync_archive vs. log.debug)
 2. That #989496 surfaced first in 12.04 and was fixed in September.
This bug is a regression after the update to 12.10.

For reason 2. I also do not believe it is an duplicate of #1050509,
this bug should have manifested itself earlier. I lack the experience
to gauge if it is an duplicate of #1050061, but this bug is supposed
to be fixed in quantal.

[Michael Terry (mterry)]

Thanks for the report and digging into whether it's a dup or not. Looking at the source around this exception, it looks like the filenames came from the Ubuntu One duplicity backend. And thus it's a dup of bug 1080423 (which is still an open bug but I have a patch for against duplicity trunk).