Bug 1490048

Summary: InvalidBackendURL error in deja-dup on external HDD
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Jan Vlug <jan.public>
Component: deja-dupAssignee: Gwyn Ciesla <gwync>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 26CC: fedora, gwync, jitesh.1337, kengert, philip, walter.pete
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: Reopened
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: deja-dup-36.1-1.fc26 deja-dup-36.1-1.fc27 Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-09-23 20:21:50 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Jan Vlug 2017-09-09 16:48:44 UTC
When I start deja-dup to make an backup to an external USB HDD (which worked fine in the past), this error is displayed:

InvalidBackendURL: missing // - relative paths not supported for scheme gio+invalid: gio+invalid://

Comment 1 Jan Vlug 2017-09-09 17:02:27 UTC
The external USB HDD is encrypted. When I first mount the disk, so that it is available, and then start deja-dup from the command line, I get window with this message:

Storage location not available
Waiting for '5.0 TB Encrypted' to become connected...

Note that the name of the mount point is different:
ls /run/media/jan/
'5.0 TB Partition'

In the dropdownlistbox for the Storage location in deja-dup, I only see: '5.0 TB Encrypted', not '5.0 TB Partition'.

Comment 2 Jan Vlug 2017-09-14 18:28:54 UTC
Fixed upstream.

Comment 3 Philip Withnall 2017-09-14 20:44:26 UTC
Shouldn’t this bug remain open to track inclusion of that patch into the Fedora package for deja-dup?

Comment 4 Jan Vlug 2017-09-15 09:55:10 UTC
In the meanwhile, I worked around the bug by selecting manually the destination location again. This means that I cannot test whether the bug is fixed.

For now I will reopen the bug.

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2017-09-15 13:40:40 UTC
deja-dup-36.1-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-c27d77c788

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2017-09-15 13:41:05 UTC
deja-dup-36.1-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-51979dace2

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2017-09-15 16:56:04 UTC
deja-dup-36.1-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-51979dace2

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2017-09-16 04:25:43 UTC
deja-dup-36.1-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-c27d77c788

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2017-09-23 20:21:50 UTC
deja-dup-36.1-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2017-09-30 06:35:08 UTC
deja-dup-36.1-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.