yes, I'm replying to a message that's almost a year old - sorry.
Roy Keene wrote on 2012-05-16 11:38:17 -0500 [Re: [BackupPC-devel] BackupPCd]:
> On Wed, 16 May 2012, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
> > [...]
> > 1. What is the use case for a specialized/proprietary BackupPC client
> > when BackupPC natively supports so many different transfer methods
> > now?
I want to add a point I find *very* interesting: a specialized client can be
made to send the potential pool file (base) name for a file it wishes to
transfer. This way, files already in the pool would not need to be transfered
over the wire, even if the file does not exist or has a different name in the
reference backup (or there is no reference backup). Presuming we're not on
an architecture with a broken MD5 library, of course ;-).
> I am willing to let the project remain in its current unmaintained state
> forever but I wanted to give anyone with an interest an opportunity to
> come forward and take over the project including all the version control
> history (which was previously in an internal Subversion repository) as
> well as updated links as appropriate.
I've wanted to *take a look* at BackupPCd for years now, and still haven't
gotten around to doing so. I guess that doesn't really qualify me for *taking
it over* :-). But I will keep the offer in mind. Thank you.
P.S.: As far as I can tell, BackupPC 3.2.0 removed support for BackupPCd.
Until then it was mentioned in the config file, though not documented
as an allowed XferMethod value ...
This might give a further hint at the number of people currently using