Description of problem:
This bug report is being created as a request to update Netatalk from 2.1.5 to 2.2.0 in the EPEL repository.
The latest version of Mac OS X Lion (10.7) will no longer run Timemachine backups to a AFP server that does not support the latest protocols. It seems this was done for security reasons, but the ability to run Timemachine backups is one of the more common use cases for still installing Netatalk on server systems.
Netatalk 2.2.0 recently went from Beta to full stable release. It would be great if the package in EPEL could be updated, so users of the repo could update without recompiling themselves.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Netatalk 2.1.5 is currently available in the repo. This request is to update the repo version to 2.2.0
The reason for the update is to allow compatibility with Mac OS X Lion (10.7) Mac 10.7 will not connect to a 2.1.5 Netatalk server.
Added URL to Netatalk 2.2.0 release notes, which include details on requirements of OS X Lion (10.7) and Timemachine.
netatalk-2.2.0-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
* should fix your issue,
* was pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository,
* should be available at your local mirror within two days.
Update it with:
# su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=epel-testing netatalk-2.2.0-1.el6'
as soon as you are able to.
Please go to the following url:
then log in and leave karma (feedback).
Tried it out today, and it worked, no problems. Left a comment on the fedoraproject.org page.
Here's the comment I left:
Tried this out today, and it worked great. I am running Timemachine backup to it now. The only surprise was that the directory for configuration changed from /etc/atalk to /etc/netatalk . This makes more sense, but does require merging all changes over to the new files after installing.
netatalk-2.2.0-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Would you consider an update for the EPEL 5 branch, too?