Re: unison compatibility in stretch

On Friday, 29 Dec 2017 at 11:27, Tony van der Hoff wrote: [...] > Syncthing appears to be an extremely powerful file synchronization tool, [...] > I've decided to give up on Syncthing, and revert to Unison, which means > upgrading my server, but hey, what are holidays for? Thanks for the

Re: unison compatibility in stretch

On 13/12/17 17:49, Tony van der Hoff wrote: > On 13/12/17 17:29, Anders Andersson wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Tony van der Hoff >> wrote: >>> On 13/12/17 15:40, Curt wrote: Sorry for butting in once again, but you do have unison-all installed, the

Re: unison compatibility in stretch

On 13/12/17 17:29, Anders Andersson wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Tony van der Hoff > wrote: >> On 13/12/17 15:40, Curt wrote: >>> Sorry for butting in once again, but you do have unison-all installed, >>> the metapackage which allows specifically for the

Re: unison compatibility in stretch

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Tony van der Hoff wrote: > On 13/12/17 15:40, Curt wrote: >> Sorry for butting in once again, but you do have unison-all installed, >> the metapackage which allows specifically for the -addversionno "kludge" by >> bringing in versions 2.32

Re: unison compatibility in stretch

On 13/12/17 15:40, Curt wrote: > On 2017-12-13, Tony van der Hoff wrote: >> It seems the unison developers are a little careless with compatibility >> issues. This situation has arisen previously, then overcome by unison-all. >> >> Thanks for your suggestion of syncthing;

Re: unison compatibility in stretch

On 2017-12-13, Tony van der Hoff wrote: >> > It seems the unison developers are a little careless with compatibility > issues. This situation has arisen previously, then overcome by unison-all. > > Thanks for your suggestion of syncthing; I'll give that a go... Sorry for

Re: unison compatibility in stretch

On 13/12/17 13:35, Eric S Fraga wrote: > On Wednesday, 13 Dec 2017 at 12:49, Tony van der Hoff wrote: > > [...] > > unison is a fantastic tool but these incompatibilities make it > incredibly frustrating to use every now and again. > > You could consider the following options: > > 1. build unison

Re: unison compatibility in stretch

On Wednesday, 13 Dec 2017 at 12:49, Tony van der Hoff wrote: [...] > The server is running Jessie, the repository does not contain 2.48. > There appears to be no backport. > The client is running Stretch. Its repository does not contain anything > other than 2.48. > >>From what I can see froom

Re: unison compatibility in stretch

On 12/12/17 11:58, Eric S Fraga wrote: > On Monday, 11 Dec 2017 at 10:36, Tony van der Hoff wrote: > > [...] > >> No: >> >> tony@tony-lx:~$ unison -addversionno tony >> Contacting server... >> bash: unison-2.48: command not found > But you do need to install the various versions you may to use on

Re: unison compatibility in stretch

On 12 December 2017 at 21:16, Tony van der Hoff wrote: > On 12/12/17 08:50, Curt wrote: >> >> * workaroundable via symlink version number truncation bug >> > Thanks for your reply, Curt, but we appear to speak different languages ;) > > WVSVNTB? The mysterious "WVSVNTB"

Re: unison compatibility in stretch

On 2017-12-12, Tony van der Hoff wrote: >>> tony@tony-lx:~$ unison -addversionno tony >>> Contacting server... >>> bash: unison-2.48: command not found >>> Fatal error: Lost connection with the server >>> >>> >> * workaroundable via symlink version number truncation bug >>

Re: unison compatibility in stretch

On Monday, 11 Dec 2017 at 10:36, Tony van der Hoff wrote: [...] > No: > > tony@tony-lx:~$ unison -addversionno tony > Contacting server... > bash: unison-2.48: command not found But you do need to install the various versions you may to use on the server. Then the client can request to use the

Re: unison compatibility in stretch

On 12/12/17 08:50, Curt wrote: > On 2017-12-11, Tony van der Hoff wrote: >> On 10/12/17 19:40, Eric S Fraga wrote: >>> On Sunday, 10 Dec 2017 at 12:25, Tony van der Hoff wrote: >>> >>> [...] >>> In the passt, I've always worked round this by installing the lower

Re: unison compatibility in stretch

On 2017-12-11, Tony van der Hoff wrote: > On 10/12/17 19:40, Eric S Fraga wrote: >> On Sunday, 10 Dec 2017 at 12:25, Tony van der Hoff wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>> In the passt, I've always worked round this by installing the lower >>> version on my desktop and adjusted the

Re: unison compatibility in stretch

On 10/12/17 19:40, Eric S Fraga wrote: > On Sunday, 10 Dec 2017 at 12:25, Tony van der Hoff wrote: > > [...] > >> In the passt, I've always worked round this by installing the lower >> version on my desktop and adjusted the links. This appears no lnger to >> be possible. >> >> Does anyone know how

Re: unison compatibility in stretch

On Sunday, 10 Dec 2017 at 12:25, Tony van der Hoff wrote: [...] > In the passt, I've always worked round this by installing the lower > version on my desktop and adjusted the links. This appears no lnger to > be possible. > > Does anyone know how to get round this? (I've no immediate intention

Re: unison compatibility in stretch

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 12:25:42 +, Tony van der Hoff wrote: > Hi, > > For years I've been using unison to keep common files amongst my various > systems. > > I now find that stretch provides version 2.48, whereas Jessie provided > 2.40, and they are not compatible. My server, which still runs

Re: unison compatibility in stretch

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 12:25:42 + Tony van der Hoff wrote: > Hi, > > For years I've been using unison to keep common files amongst my > various systems. > > I now find that stretch provides version 2.48, whereas Jessie provided > 2.40, and they are not compatible. My

unison compatibility in stretch

Hi, For years I've been using unison to keep common files amongst my various systems. I now find that stretch provides version 2.48, whereas Jessie provided 2.40, and they are not compatible. My server, which still runs Jessie, will therefore not accept connections from my desktop box. In the