Summary: | sys-fs/sshfs-fuse: Improve remote permissions when files and directories are created | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Richard <shiningarcanine> |
Component: | [OLD] Unspecified | Assignee: | No maintainer - Look at https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Proxy_Maintainers if you want to take care of it <maintainer-needed> |
Status: | RESOLVED UPSTREAM | ||
Severity: | enhancement | CC: | kripton |
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Attachments: | Port of André Frimberger's patch to sshfs-fuse 2.3 |
Description
Richard
2011-11-12 19:24:57 UTC
Created attachment 292313 [details, diff]
Port of André Frimberger's patch to sshfs-fuse 2.3
Here is a port of André Frimberger's patch to sshfs-fuse 2.3.
Have you (or someone else) pushed this upstream in some fashion? I'd rather apply patches that have been accepted into upstream then start diverging from it. I spotted a mailing list discussion via a google search on the topic that showed some talk about that, but the result was inconclusive. This does not appear to have ever been pushed upstream properly, but my time is extremely limited at the moment, so I cannot check things to be certain. With that said, it is possible to put patches like this behind a USE flag to avoid divergence. (In reply to comment #3) > With that said, it is possible to put patches like this behind a USE flag to > avoid divergence. Not really. My point is when a patch like this is added without upstream support someone (me) will have to keep forward porting it to new versions which isn't always fun if things change a lot. :) If you want a better chance of it getting added, it would be best to take a few minutes to submit it upstream for discussion and acceptance. this should be forwarded to upstream directly |