Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am using Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and I have apparently messed up my system with various versions of duplicity installations:

  • first I had 0.6.18 installed from the default repo,
  • then I tried using 0.6.23 from the PPA
  • in the end I built 0.6.24 from the source and installed it

(I list this for completeness but I don't really think this is duplicity-specific.)

Now my system behaves like this:

root@host:~# duplicity -V
duplicity 0.6.24

root@host:~# which -a duplicity
/usr/bin/duplicity

root@host:~# /usr/bin/duplicity -V
duplicity 0.6.24

root@host:~# head /usr/bin/duplicity
#!/usr/bin/python2.7
# -*- Mode:Python; indent-tabs-mode:nil; tab-width:4 -*-
#
# duplicity -- Encrypted bandwidth efficient backup
# Version 0.6.23 released $reldate
#
# Copyright 2002 Ben Escoto <ben@emerose.org>
# Copyright 2007 Kenneth Loafman <kenneth@loafman.com>
#
# This file is part of duplicity.

???

Is there some kind of binary cache in Ubuntu that is being used here?

UPDATE:

root@host:~$ cat /usr/bin/duplicity | grep 24
            return 128 * 1024
    if maxopen < 1024:
        log.FatalError(_("Max open files of %s is too low, should be >= 1024.\n"
                         "Use 'ulimit -n 1024' or higher to correct.\n") % (maxopen,),
root@host:~$ cat /usr/bin/duplicity | grep 23
# Version 0.6.23 released $reldate
log.Log(u"duplicity 0.6.23 ($reldate)", verbosity)
share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

Comments are often not in sync with the code. You could grep -F '0.6.24' /usr/bin/duplicity to check this. If that doesn't give any results, it could be that the version string is stored in multiple variables, so you might want to search for 23 or 24.

As far as I know no distro has a cache of executables. I expect the security implications would be severe.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you for reminding me the sad truth about the comments but apparently this is not the case here. I'll add the results of my grepping in a moment but it seems that it really is v. 0.6.23 pointed by which. –  Grzegorz Dubicki Jun 2 at 6:57

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.