Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> What the heck. I don't want to take too much of your time, I'll try to
> get access to a kfreebsd machine to look into this directly.
Equally, if you think there is not much chance of it working on kfreebsd
we could request ftpmaster removal instead. But, F
t one.
>>
>> * Is there a "fusermount" executable available on kfreebsd?
>
> No, but there is a mount_fusefs in package fuse4bsd.
That explains why two out of 3 test files are skipped. But not why only
1 out of 3 is discovered.
>
> Also I realised when I sugg
ble on kfreebsd?
No, but there is a mount_fusefs in package fuse4bsd.
Also I realised when I suggested before putting in Build-Depends:
fuse [linux-any] | fuse4bsd [kfreebsd-any],
that actually does not do as intended unless written as:
fuse [linux-any], fuse4bsd [kfreebsd-any],
> * C
> $ py.test-3 -s test/ ; echo exit status $?
> == test session starts
> ===
> platform gnukfreebsd10 -- Python 3.4.4rc1, pytest-2.8.5, py-1.4.31,
> pluggy-0.3.1 -- /usr/bin/python3
> cachedir: test/.cache
> ro
Hi,
Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> This looks odd.. something fails, but I don't actually see any error
> message (skipping a test shouldn't result in a test failure). Is this
> from a buildd or from your local system?
>
> In the latter case, can you try running 'py.test-3 -s test/' directly to
> see if
user debian-bsd@lists.debian.org
usertags 815328 + kfreebsd
thanks
Hi,
Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> python-llfuse cannot be built on kfreebsd-amd64 and kfreebsd-i386 since
> the fuse binary package does not exist there (but libfuse-dev is
> available).
The package already Build-Depends o
Any regular FUSE users around? Have you tried it on kfreebsd-10?
kfreebsd-10 includes its own kernel module for FUSE. It is based on
fuse4bsd, so it might be ABI compatible. Would be helpful for packaging
purposes if someone can confirm the following combination works:
kfreebsd-10
fuse4bsd
This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report
which was filed against the src:fuse package:
#680232: fuse: FTBFS[kfreebsd]: chmod: cannot access
`debian/fuse/bin/fusermount': No such file or directory
It has been closed by Daniel Baumann .
Their explanation is attached
Thank you for filing a new Bug report with Debian.
This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.
Your message is being forwarded to the package maintainers and other
interested parties for their attention; they will reply in due course.
As you requested
-* buildds:
dh_fixperms
chmod 0755 debian/fuse/bin/fusermount
chmod: cannot access `debian/fuse/bin/fusermount': No such file or directory
make[1]: *** [override_dh_fixperms] Error 1
Full build log at
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=fuse&arch=kfreebsd-amd64&ver=2.9.0-4&
2011/10/30 Papp Tamas :
>> Did you install the fuse4bsd-dkms package? It should compile fuse.ko for
>> you.
>
> You are right. Now it's OK.
> Why is it not installed by default,
It's installed as dependency for packages that need it.
> why dkms?
Because it hasn't been merged in upstream kernel
On 10/30/2011 02:31 AM, Robert Millan wrote:
2011/10/30 Papp Tamas:
hi All,
I'm trying to use fuse, but I don't find fuse.ko. Why is it missing from the
repo?
Hi,
Did you install the fuse4bsd-dkms package? It should compile fuse.ko for you.
You are right. Now it's OK
2011/10/30 Papp Tamas :
> hi All,
>
> I'm trying to use fuse, but I don't find fuse.ko. Why is it missing from the
> repo?
Hi,
Did you install the fuse4bsd-dkms package? It should compile fuse.ko for you.
--
Robert Millan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...
hi All,
I'm trying to use fuse, but I don't find fuse.ko. Why is it missing from
the repo?
Thank you,
tamas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: htt
2011/10/15 Christoph Egger :
> Hi!
>
> does anyone know why fuse4bsd doesn't provide fuse?
It's not a drop-in replacement. Some packages depend on "fuse"
because they need the fusermount command (which fuse4bsd doesn't
provide).
--
Robert Millan
--
To UNS
Hi!
does anyone know why fuse4bsd doesn't provide fuse?
Thanks
Christoph
--
9FED 5C6C E206 B70A 5857 70CA 9655 22B9 D49A E731
Debian Developer | Lisp Hacker | CaCert Assurer
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe
2011/7/20 Aurelien Jarno :
> I think it should be ',' instead of '|' here, there is no need for
> alternative, the architecture conditionals already do the job.
Hi Aurelien
You're right. I just followed existing practice, but I admit it's not
entirely consistent.
However, since this is basicall
t; Usertags: kfreebsd
>
> Hi
>
> This package is not installable on kfreebsd-i386 or kfreebsd-amd64 because it
> depends unconditionally on fuse-utils.
>
> If %package% depends on fuse-utils only to ensure that FUSE support is
> enabled,
> please consider adjusting
Hi Cristoph,
2011/7/17 Christoph Egger :
> 21:29 0 % sudo chmod 666 /dev/fuse0
I tried that too ;-)
> 21:29 1 % gphotofs ~/mnt
> mount_fusefs: /dev/fuse0 on /home/christoph/mnt: Operation not permitted
I don't think this is intended to work. I haven't checked the code,
but I suspect supporting
Package: fuse4bsd
Version: 0.3.9~pre1.20080208-3
Severity: important
christoph@chillida ~
21:27 1 % sudo kldload fuse
Passwort:
christoph@chillida ~
21:27 0 % sudo kldstat
Id Refs AddressSize Name
19 0x8020 c66000 kfreebsd-8.2-1-amd64.gz
21
On 07/17/2011 12:43 PM, Robert Millan wrote:
>> I think I'll patch S3QL to fall back on umount if fusermount is not
>> available and depend on fuse | fuse4bsd. This should work fine, because
>> then if the user was able to mount the file system on BSD he must have
>>
2011/7/17 Nikolaus Rath :
>> No. non-root users can't use FUSE at all.
>
> I guess you mean non-root users can't use FUSE on BSD kernels, it
> certainly works on Linux.
Right, that's what I meant.
> I think I'll patch S3QL to fall back on umount if fuser
Robert Millan writes:
> 2011/7/17 Nikolaus Rath :
>>> Unmounting is done via umount command as with normal filesystems.
>>
>> Does that also work for non-root users?
>
> No. non-root users can't use FUSE at all.
I guess you mean non-root users can't use
2011/7/17 Nikolaus Rath :
>> Unmounting is done via umount command as with normal filesystems.
>
> Does that also work for non-root users?
No. non-root users can't use FUSE at all.
--
Robert Millan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
On 07/16/2011 07:32 PM, Robert Millan wrote:
> 2011/7/17 Nikolaus Rath :
>> Robert Millan writes:
>>> Else if %package% depends on fuse-utils because it can't work at all without
>>> fusermount, please reply to this bug report so we can try to find a
>>&g
2011/7/17 Nikolaus Rath :
> Robert Millan writes:
>> Else if %package% depends on fuse-utils because it can't work at all without
>> fusermount, please reply to this bug report so we can try to find a solution.
>
> The s3ql package still fits into this category
Robert Millan writes:
> Else if %package% depends on fuse-utils because it can't work at all without
> fusermount, please reply to this bug report so we can try to find a solution.
The s3ql package still fits into this category. Does fuse4bsd provide no
fusermount at all, or does i
2011/7/16 Nikolaus Rath :
> I would expect that every package that depends on fuse-utils probably
> requires command-line functionality (because fuse-utils really doesn't
> provide anything else), so I'm not convinced that automatically filing
> bugs here would be a good i
2011/7/16 Nikolaus Rath :
> I would expect that every package that depends on fuse-utils probably
> requires command-line functionality (because fuse-utils really doesn't
> provide anything else), so I'm not convinced that automatically filing
> bugs here would be a good idea
On 07/16/2011 03:29 PM, Robert Millan wrote:
> 2011/7/16 Nikolaus Rath :
>> I'm maintaining the s3ql package and it uses the fusermount command. I
>> am not sure what you mean with "a FUSE daemon"...?
>
> Presence of init.d script led me to think there was
because it
depends unconditionally on fuse-utils.
If %package% depends on fuse-utils only to ensure that FUSE support is enabled,
please consider adjusting the dependency to something like:
Depends: fuse [linux-any] | fuse4bsd [kfreebsd-any]
(example uses "fuse" because fuse-util
2011/7/16 Nikolaus Rath :
> I'm maintaining the s3ql package and it uses the fusermount command. I
> am not sure what you mean with "a FUSE daemon"...?
Presence of init.d script led me to think there was a daemon, but now
I notice it just takes care of loading Linux mod
Robert Millan writes:
> There are 23 packages in unstable which can't be installed on Debian
> GNU/kFreeBSD because of their unconditional dependency on fuse-utils.
> On this platform, fuse4bsd should be used instead.
>
> I indent to file one bug report for each of them:
&
On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 16:10:18 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> wikipediafs sshfs smbnetfs s3ql rofs python-fuse pytagsfs plptools
> mythtvfs ntfsprogs libpam-mount libfuse-perl libconfig-model-perl
> httpfs2 gphotofs gfarm2fs fusedav fts flickrfs curlftpfs bindfs avfs
> aptfs
I&
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 04:10:18PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> Hi!
>
> There are 23 packages in unstable which can't be installed on Debian
> GNU/kFreeBSD because of their unconditional dependency on fuse-utils.
> On this platform, fuse4bsd should be used instead.
>
>
2011/7/16 Mike Hommey :
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 04:10:18PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> There are 23 packages in unstable which can't be installed on Debian
>> GNU/kFreeBSD because of their unconditional dependency on fuse-utils.
>> On this pla
2011/7/16 YunQiang Su :
> Is it the job for fuse4bsd maintainers to set Provide: fuse-utils ?
fuse4bsd shouldn't provide fuse-utils because it's not completely
equivalent to this package. There are two important differences:
- A package may require fuse-utils because it relies sp
Is it the job for fuse4bsd maintainers to set Provide: fuse-utils ?
--
YunQiang Su
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/cakcpw6u8r
Hi!
There are 23 packages in unstable which can't be installed on Debian
GNU/kFreeBSD because of their unconditional dependency on fuse-utils.
On this platform, fuse4bsd should be used instead.
I indent to file one bug report for each of them:
wikipediafs sshfs smbnetfs s3ql rofs python
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 01:50:35PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> Package: unionfs-fuse
> Version: 0.24-2
> Severity: serious
> Justification: uninstallable
>
> The unionfs-fuse package depends on fuse-utils, which is only built on
> linux. If the dependency is necessary the
On 03-04 22:04, Tuco Xyz wrote:
> Regarding:
>
> http://wiki.debian.org/Debian_GNU/kFreeBSD_FAQ#Q.IsthereZFSsupport.3F
>
> I just wanted to point out that the zpool utility is in zfs-fuse
> package (debian sid)
>
> (note: zpool is not fuse-related, it's an mkfs
Regarding:
http://wiki.debian.org/Debian_GNU/kFreeBSD_FAQ#Q.IsthereZFSsupport.3F
I just wanted to point out that the zpool utility is in zfs-fuse
package (debian sid)
(note: zpool is not fuse-related, it's an mkfs)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
w
"Adam Cécile (Le_Vert)" (03/07/2009):
> Okay, patch for libulockmgr dependency against libpthread added, as
> well as libfreebsd-dev [kfreebsd-amd64 kfreebsd-i386] b-dep. I also
> added libfreebsd-dev to libfuse-dev dependencies, it should be fine
> now.
Built fine, thanks.
Mraw,
KiBi.
--
-* as at least in
https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?&pkg=fuse&ver=2.7.4-1.1&arch=i386&stamp=1222983978&file=log
https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?&pkg=fuse&ver=2.7.4-1.1&arch=ia64&stamp=1222984628&file=log
is also
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol
1
> +libulockmgr_la_LDFLAGS = -pthread -version-number 1:0:1
>
> EXTRA_DIST = fuse_versionscript
(And the same in lib/Makefile.in)
It indeed does, no more warnings and indeed:
| k...@kbsd:~/fuse-2.7.4$ objdump -x
debian/libfuse2/usr/lib/libulockmgr.so.1.0.1|grep NEEDED
| NEEDED
ng is still needed, at least including
> Build-Depends: libfreebsd-dev [kfreebsd-amd64 kfreebsd-i386]
Yep, installing that package made fuse built properly (without the
previous devname_r issue), and sshfs-fuse was then built without
problems.
I'm still getting pthread_sigmask has not foun
://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?&pkg=fuse&ver=2.7.4-1.1&arch=i386&stamp=1222983978&file=log
https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?&pkg=fuse&ver=2.7.4-1.1&arch=ia64&stamp=1222984628&file=log
is also
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol pthread_sigmask used by
debi
reebsd-dev fixed that.
And after installing the libfuse-dev built again with libfreebsd-dev
installed, sshfs-fuse still throws some warnings, but at least it no
more FTBFS. (Can't install and further test it due to
fuse-utils/fuse4bsd missing though.)
So, Adam, please include the Build-Depends m
What I noticed when building:
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol pthread_sigmask used by
debian/libfuse2/usr/lib/libulockmgr.so.1.0.1 found in none of the libraries.
It should come from libpthread.
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol devname_r used by
debian/libfuse2/usr/lib/libfuse.so.2.7.4 found
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 09:44:29PM +0200, "Adam Cécile (Le_Vert)" wrote:
> [1] http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/fuse/fuse_2.7.4-2.dsc
Just wondering: is a fuse4bsd source package (see [1]) already
available somewhere for testing with this?
[1] http://bugs.debia
(Keeping you Cc'd, not sure you're on this list.)
"Adam Cécile (Le_Vert)" (01/07/2009):
> Hello,
Hello,
> Could you please build and test it on kFreeBSD before I upload this
> new package?
sure, builds fine.
> Do you want me to forward it to him for an
Hello,
I've prepared a package [1] with Aurelien's patch applied.
Could you please build and test it on kFreeBSD before I upload this new
package?
If it works fine, Miklos Szeredi (fuse upstream) is usually nice and I
bet he would accept your patch.
Do you want me to forward it to
52 matches
Mail list logo
