Bug#690227: Netatalk 3.0.6 packages for Debian
Hi, In common with the previous poster to this bug, I needed a newer version (3.0.3 was causing errors for me with mountain lion). I've built 3.0.6 using the same debian directory as 3.0.3 with minimal changes. It works for me, but no warranty etc. http://www.hoyle.me.uk/debian/ Tony -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#690227: Netatalk 3.0.6 packages for Debian
Quoting Tony Hoyle (2014-01-11 16:45:08) In common with the previous poster to this bug, I needed a newer version (3.0.3 was causing errors for me with mountain lion). I've built 3.0.6 using the same debian directory as 3.0.3 with minimal changes. It works for me, but no warranty etc. http://www.hoyle.me.uk/debian/ Thanks for sharing. Can you elaborate on the kinds of issues you experienced with 3.0.3? Netatalk 2.2.2 works fine for my needs, so I am interested if that's simply because you use some features I don't. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#690227: Netatalk 3.0.6 packages for Debian
On 11/01/2014 16:12, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting Tony Hoyle (2014-01-11 16:45:08) In common with the previous poster to this bug, I needed a newer version (3.0.3 was causing errors for me with mountain lion). I've built 3.0.6 using the same debian directory as 3.0.3 with minimal changes. It works for me, but no warranty etc. http://www.hoyle.me.uk/debian/ Thanks for sharing. Can you elaborate on the kinds of issues you experienced with 3.0.3? Netatalk 2.2.2 works fine for my needs, so I am interested if that's simply because you use some features I don't. - Jonas I had to update to 3.0.3 originally because of frequent corruption issues with time machine. This was fixed somewhere in the 3.x series (or rather the google reports of corruption seem to die off somewhere after the release of 3.x). 3.0.3 has been fairly stable since install (April/May ish). When I updated OSX recently I was finding the share was randomly coming up as not found, which was again breaking time machine (it silently failed to backup for over a week before I noticed). So far 3.0.6 hasn't suffered the issue, although it's difficult to judge yet - OTOH being on a relatively recent release means I can make meaningful bug reports should I need to. Why 2.2.2? why not, for example, 2.2.5, if you're sticking with the old stable branch? Tony -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#690227: Netatalk 3.0.6 packages for Debian
Quoting Tony Hoyle (2014-01-11 18:19:27) On 11/01/2014 16:12, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting Tony Hoyle (2014-01-11 16:45:08) In common with the previous poster to this bug, I needed a newer version (3.0.3 was causing errors for me with mountain lion). I've built 3.0.6 using the same debian directory as 3.0.3 with minimal changes. It works for me, but no warranty etc. http://www.hoyle.me.uk/debian/ Thanks for sharing. Can you elaborate on the kinds of issues you experienced with 3.0.3? I had to update to 3.0.3 originally because of frequent corruption issues with time machine. Ah, right. I don't use Time machine. This was fixed somewhere in the 3.x series (or rather the google reports of corruption seem to die off somewhere after the release of 3.x). 3.0.3 has been fairly stable since install (April/May ish). When I updated OSX recently I was finding the share was randomly coming up as not found, which was again breaking time machine (it silently failed to backup for over a week before I noticed). So far 3.0.6 hasn't suffered the issue, although it's difficult to judge yet - OTOH being on a relatively recent release means I can make meaningful bug reports should I need to. Thanks for the details! Netatalk 2.2.2 works fine for my needs, so I am interested if that's simply because you use some features I don't. Why 2.2.2? why not, for example, 2.2.5, if you're sticking with the old stable branch? Oh. I simply hadn't noticed those interleaved updates. Thanks! For the record: I do intend for the Debian package to move to 3.x, just haven't found time for it yet - also affected by it apparently running quite stable: I have received no complaints where I have it deployed (a business school where users love to upgrade their Macs aggressively). - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
