Re: sshfs failure

2017-08-12 Thread Mark Morgan Lloyd
On 12/08/17 00:15, Gene Heskett wrote: On Friday 11 August 2017 13:56:16 Jens Thiele wrote: try to ssh with -v to get more info: gene@coyote:~$ ssh -v pi@picncsheldon jens Maybe, but I have 2 copies of bash, terminal-4.8, and all those logins are working flawlessly. I'd expect new but not

Re: sshfs failure

2017-08-12 Thread Christian Knoke
Gene Heskett schrieb am 12. Aug um 00:53 Uhr: > ssh works fine, its sshfs that isn't. It was working in June or early > july, now it replies: > gene@coyote:/etc$ sshfs -o pi@picnc:/ /sshnet/picnc > missing host > see `sshfs -h' for usage check names and name resolving, use a FQDN, cat /etc/res

Re: sshfs failure

2017-08-12 Thread Marcus Poller
Hi Gene, Cc debian-arm, Gene Heskett wrote: > gene@coyote:/etc$ sshfs -o pi@picnc:/ /sshnet/picnc > missing host This does not appear right to me. Let's check your your ssh-options: The command line in this e-mail could be a typo. If not, you have been executing sshfs with an extra "-o "-optio

Re: sshfs failure

2017-08-12 Thread Gene Heskett
On Saturday 12 August 2017 04:02:59 Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: > On 12/08/17 00:15, Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Friday 11 August 2017 13:56:16 Jens Thiele wrote: > >> try to ssh with -v to get more info: > >> gene@coyote:~$ ssh -v pi@picncsheldon > >> > >> jens > > > > Maybe, but I have 2 copies of b

Re: sshfs failure

2017-08-12 Thread Gene Heskett
On Saturday 12 August 2017 05:18:20 Christian Knoke wrote: > Gene Heskett schrieb am 12. Aug um 00:53 Uhr: > > ssh works fine, its sshfs that isn't. It was working in June or > > early july, now it replies: > > gene@coyote:/etc$ sshfs -o pi@picnc:/ /sshnet/picnc > > missing host > > see `sshfs -h

Re: sshfs failure

2017-08-12 Thread Gene Heskett
On Saturday 12 August 2017 06:25:21 Marcus Poller wrote: > Hi Gene, > Cc debian-arm, > > Gene Heskett wrote: > > gene@coyote:/etc$ sshfs -o pi@picnc:/ /sshnet/picnc > > missing host > > This does not appear right to me. Let's check your your ssh-options: > > The command line in this e-mail could b