From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Claes Wallin (=?UTF-8?Q?=E9=9F=8B=E5=98=89=E8=AA=A0?=) Subject: bug#21142: Sshfs-fuse requires fuse Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 21:27:13 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20150727150532.GA18963@debian> <87wpxk2wjh.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c095d8012aea0051bf4756e Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52286) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZKAXm-0007sB-OL for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 15:28:07 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZKAXi-0002nt-Mx for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 15:28:06 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:59774) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZKAXi-0002np-KG for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 15:28:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1ZKAXi-0008CW-7K for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 15:28:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87wpxk2wjh.fsf@netris.org> 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: Mark H Weaver Cc: 21142@debbugs.gnu.org --94eb2c095d8012aea0051bf4756e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Jul 28, 2015 4:21 PM, "Mark H Weaver" wrote: > 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? That's even better! > 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? Yeah, installing a package should cause the minimum amount of surprise. --94eb2c095d8012aea0051bf4756e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Jul 28, 2015 4:21 PM, "Mark H Weaver" <mhw@netris.org> wrote:
> Claes Wallin (=E9=9F=8B=E5=98=89=E8=AA=A0) <gnu@clacke.user.lysator.liu.se> writes: > > On 27-Jul-2015 5:06 pm, "Andreas Enge" <andreas@enge.fr> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> when trying to execute sshfs from the sshfs-fuse package, I o= btain
> >> 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 ad= d fuse to
> > its PATH?
>
> Or patch the reference to 'fusermount' to be an absolute path?=

That's even better!

> I haven't looked into this, so I don't know the= feasibility of these
> approaches, but in general I think that 'propagated-inputs' sh= ould be
> avoided whenever there is a reasonable alternative.
>
> What do you think?

Yeah, installing a package should cause the minimum amount o= f surprise.

--94eb2c095d8012aea0051bf4756e--