From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark H Weaver Subject: bug#21142: Sshfs-fuse requires fuse Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:20:50 -0400 Message-ID: <87wpxk2wjh.fsf@netris.org> References: <20150727150532.GA18963@debian> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34453) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZK5lg-0008DW-3g for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:22:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZK5lb-000455-6n for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:22:08 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:59659) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZK5lb-000451-32 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:22:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1ZK5la-0006KZ-Iv for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:22:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: ("Claes Wallin \=\?utf-8\?B\?KOmfi+WYieiqoCkiJ3M\=\?\= message of "Mon, 27 Jul 2015 19:23:20 +0200") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: "Claes Wallin (=?UTF-8?Q?=E9=9F=8B=E5=98=89=E8=AA=A0?=)" Cc: 21142@debbugs.gnu.org Claes Wallin (=E9=9F=8B=E5=98=89=E8=AA=A0) = writes: > On 27-Jul-2015 5:06 pm, "Andreas Enge" wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> when trying to execute sshfs from the sshfs-fuse package, I obtain >> fuse: failed to exec fusermount: No such file or directory >> >> I think that fuse should be a propagated input of sshfs-fuse. > > Maybe it's less intrusive toward the user to wrap sshfs to add fuse to > its PATH? Or patch the reference to 'fusermount' to be an absolute path? I haven't looked into this, so I don't know the feasibility of these approaches, but in general I think that 'propagated-inputs' should be avoided whenever there is a reasonable alternative. What do you think? Mark