Patches sysutils/fusefs-kmod to use the latest fuse code from head. Tested on FreeBSD 8.1 and 9.1 with sshfs. Fix: Patch attached with submission follows:
Maintainer of sysutils/fusefs-kmod, Please note that PR ports/184042 has just been submitted. If it contains a patch for an upgrade, an enhancement or a bug fix you agree on, reply to this email stating that you approve the patch and a committer will take care of it. The full text of the PR can be found at: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/184042 -- Edwin Groothuis via the GNATS Auto Assign Tool edwin@FreeBSD.org
State Changed From-To: open->feedback Awaiting maintainers feedback (via the GNATS Auto Assign Tool)
Maintainer timeout (8 months) CC'ing maintainer (lost in bugzilla conversion) Anybody can commit this now, assuming it still applied (kind of doubtful)
Instead of a patch I've prepared a tarball at https://642f6e1318cd953e8dd09f82ec6344ffaca3b2fd.googledrive.com/host/0B0OQnKtejJEMQlpoTy11SG1nN2s/sysutils_fusefs-kmod.txz since it's basically an entirely new port which should make it easier to review and replace the old port with. I used it for awhile with sshfs before 10.0 was release but haven't had a need for it since then. I loosely based it off of the virtio port so you can do a 'make maintainer-check' to see if there's been any commits to head for the fuse module and 'make maintainer-tar' to build a tarball for it.
maybe you should convert that .txz into a shar so it can be added as an attachment and viewed in the web browser?
Created attachment 145071 [details] fusefs-kmod.shar
Okay, thanks for the shar! That will make update easier for sure.
I'm not sure how to test this. I do know the "post-install" target can be removed. How much risk am I taking if I simple replace the old port with this one? It passes stage checks? (e.g. make check-plist and make stage-qa) ? Does it still apply at this very moment? If you say "no risk" and "yes it does" then I'll probably commit it without testing further. And oh, how usable is the current version of the port right now?
Tested build on 91amd64 and 84i386, looks fine. marino@, I know you would like to see more testing. As fuse-kmod was an issue for a long time, this work probably helps more people than it hinders them. If you ACK, I'll commit it.
sure go ahead; I'd be grateful.
A commit references this bug: Author: pi Date: Sun Aug 3 22:04:37 UTC 2014 New revision: 363947 URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/363947 Log: sysutils/fusefs-kmod: backport 10.x-integrated code for 8.x and 9.x submitter takes over as maintainer PR: 184042 Submitted by: dpejesh@yahoo.com Approved by: mirror176@cox.net (maintainer timeout) Changes: head/sysutils/fusefs-kmod/Makefile head/sysutils/fusefs-kmod/distinfo head/sysutils/fusefs-kmod/files/extra-patch-8-fuse_vfsops.c head/sysutils/fusefs-kmod/files/extra-patch-8-fuse_vnops.c head/sysutils/fusefs-kmod/files/extra-patch-9-fuse_vfsops.c head/sysutils/fusefs-kmod/files/extra-patch-9-fuse_vnops.c head/sysutils/fusefs-kmod/files/extra-patch-fuse_module__fuse_vnops.c head/sysutils/fusefs-kmod/files/extrapatch-fuse_module__fuse_vnops.c head/sysutils/fusefs-kmod/files/fusefs.in head/sysutils/fusefs-kmod/files/patch-fuse_io.c head/sysutils/fusefs-kmod/files/patch-fuse_module__Makefile head/sysutils/fusefs-kmod/files/patch-fuse_module__fuse.h head/sysutils/fusefs-kmod/files/patch-fuse_module__fuse_dev.c head/sysutils/fusefs-kmod/files/patch-fuse_module__fuse_io.c head/sysutils/fusefs-kmod/files/patch-fuse_module__fuse_main.c head/sysutils/fusefs-kmod/files/patch-fuse_module__fuse_vfsops.c head/sysutils/fusefs-kmod/files/patch-fuse_module__fuse_vnops.c head/sysutils/fusefs-kmod/files/patch-fuse_node.c head/sysutils/fusefs-kmod/files/patch-mount_fusefs__mount_fusefs.c head/sysutils/fusefs-kmod/files/setup.sh.in head/sysutils/fusefs-kmod/pkg-descr head/sysutils/fusefs-kmod/pkg-plist
Committed, thank you very much for your patience!
Sorry for the delayed response, I haven't had much free time lately. (In reply to John Marino from comment #8) > How much risk am I taking if I simple replace the old port with this one? > It passes stage checks? (e.g. make check-plist and make stage-qa) ? It should be a drop in replacement. I was using it with sshfs mostly but I vaguely remember testing it with a few other fusefs ports back when I was working on it, but it's been so long I can't remember exactly what I tested it against. > And oh, how usable is the current version of the port right now? The current version was causing sshfs to segfault and was completely unusable for me which is what prompted me to look at fixing it, and since there was already a working module in head I backported it which resolved the crashes I was experiencing. I traced the crash down to a piece of code in the fuse library (http://sourceforge.net/p/fuse/mailman/fuse-devel/thread/5283B58F.7090808@yahoo.com/) but that message went ignored. I see it's been committed to the ports tree and appreciate you guys getting it in. I'll spend some time testing some of the fusefs ports and make sure it doesn't cause any breakage.
A commit references this bug: Author: marino Date: Sun Sep 7 15:15:33 UTC 2014 New revision: 367555 URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/367555 Log: sysutils/fusefs-kmod: Add PORTEPOCH For a reason unexplained in the PR, the version went backwards on the previous update. I guess this went unnoticed until now, but setting the PORTEPOCH now is better late than never. PR: 184042 Changes: head/sysutils/fusefs-kmod/Makefile