simple backup restore error in 9.10

I can confirm this Bug on 9.19 AMD64 Version.

Additional information:
When i run "sudo simple-restore-gnome" in a terminal, the same problem occurs - it just hangs up at restoring the file i selected.
When i am trying to terminate the programm with CTRL-C i get the following output:
~$: sudo /usr/sbin/simple-restore-gnome
^CTraceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/sbin/simple-restore-gnome", line 437, in restore_as
    self._do_restore( self.src, filename )
  File "/usr/sbin/simple-restore-gnome", line 406, in _do_restore
    r.restore( tdir, src, dst )
  File "/usr/share/sbackup/srestore.py", line 106, in restore
    shutil.move( os.path.join(tdir,spath), dpath )
  File "/usr/lib/python2.6/shutil.py", line 264, in move
    copy2(src, real_dst)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.6/shutil.py", line 99, in copy2
    copyfile(src, dst)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.6/shutil.py", line 52, in copyfile
    fsrc = open(src, 'rb')
IOError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/home/philipp/tmpwDYmE6/home/philipp/dump.txt-03.cap'
^CTraceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/sbin/simple-restore-gnome", line 453, in <module>
    SRestoreGTK()
  File "/usr/sbin/simple-restore-gnome", line 111, in __init__
    gtk.main()
KeyboardInterrupt

I hope it helps somehow.
Thanks,

Philipp

Thank you for helping with making Ubuntu and sbackup better by reporting this bug.
I've found a similar report and am linking this report to it. However, unfortunately it seems there is no active development going on upstream; the last time a new download was offered was June 2008 and there hasn't been any activity in the branches for 10 months.

Apologises. The upstream I referred to in my last comment was the sbackup project at SourceForge. Apparently sbackup has moved to Launchpad, which explains why everything seemed dead at SF.
I've opened an sbackup task so the developers can take a look at the problem.

With 10.4 I have the same bug, it does not appear to be triaged in Lucid.

Thank you for letting know this is still and issue in Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx.
However, please don't change the status of the upstream project as they may be using the statuses differently and no developer has looked at the bug yet, which means they cannot confirm it yet.

Yes, that will teach me to rely on the IRC channels for advice as they
specifically instructed me not only that it was necessary to change the
upstream status, but how (considering it isn't labeled).

Anyway, I apologize for being a dupe, and wasting your time... at least
take heart that I knew enough to not respond to your bug comment with a
comment!

Thanks,
jage

On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 19:03 +0000, Sense Hofstede wrote:
> Thank you for letting know this is still and issue in Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx.
> However, please don't change the status of the upstream project as they may be using the statuses differently and no developer has looked at the bug yet, which means they cannot confirm it yet.
>
> ** Changed in: sbackup
> Status: Confirmed => New
>

jage: I cannot know that someone at IRC told you to change the status if you don't say so. A guideline of the Bug Control team is to always say why they changed a status when they do so, this makes it easier for people to follow the bug's life and to understand what has been happening with it during it's life-cycle.

I don't think it's a bad thing to change the status if you've got a proper explanation or justification for it. If you had said that someone -- please also tell who, or what role the person has within either Ubuntu or sBackup -- at IRC told you to change the status and why you were told to do so then I wouldn't have reverted it. However, now it could have been just any user wanting to get his or her bug solved quickly and trying to get attention with changing bug statuses.

As one of the contributors of the nssbackup project I want to give some information on the state of sbackup/nssbackup:

* the project sbackup is not actively maintained since more than 2 years now (the current version sticks to 0.10.5) and it is very likely (in fact it is pretty sure) that the original developer will not continue working on sbackup.

* nssbackup is a fork of the sbackup project. It shares the same ideas as sbackup but does not share code. It is fully rewritten. The main reason for the creation of this fork were differences between the developers regarding sbackup's behaviour and future. While the original sbackup author seems not very able to spend time on sbackup, some good job was done by the other developers on bugs and features. Also, with respect to the code base, sbackup is a dead-end.
After a discussion with Aigars Mahinovs, the founder of sbackup project, we agreed that nssbackup could and should be renamed in sbackup, taking over the sbackup project.

* the nssbackup-team (2 active developers at the moment) is denoted as maintainer for sbackup. However, we will not spend any effort into sbackup rather improving nssbackup and finally replacing sbackup in the repositories.

* at the moment we are still working on release nssbackup 0.2.

* Many of the bugs present in sbackup are fixed in nssbackup resp. doesn't exist there. So, please just give it a try and help making it better. You can use it as usual software including installing via package manager.
Have a look at the project's site at https://launchpad.net/nssbackup and at the FAQs: https://answers.edge.launchpad.net/nssbackup/+faqs.

Hope this helps - Thank you.

Jean-Peer (nssbackup-team)

Thank you for your extensive reply!
I suspect that this makes the bug Won't Fix for the sBackup project since the code base is completely different. I'm marking the bug in Ubuntu as a Won't Fix as well to reflect situation.

Please re-test with our latest release which can be found at
https://edge.launchpad.net/~nssbackup-team/+archive/ppa and post log
output etc. if the error is still alive. Thanks.

I'm closing this because there has been no activity for more than 120 days.