Discovered that you can replace sshfs with rclone.
And the project appear to be way more active : https://github.com/rclone/rclone
A currently maintained fork of SSHFS
11–20 of 144 posts
Re: A currently maintained fork of SSHFS
#12The main file is a C file which is nearly 5,000 lines long. Impressive.
Re: A currently maintained fork of SSHFS
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mostly care if projects don't accept bugfixes. For example "inotify feature longer works with the latest glibc release due to subtle API change" might be an easy 10 line pull request to fix. But if the maintainer doesn't take the pull request and make a release, then the effort of fixing it is wasted, and every single user has to workaround/suffer from that bug into the future. There are loads of projects in that s…
I wish github and other code hosters made it easier to "just make a release". Next to the "Download zip" button on github, they should add a "Download built .deb" and "Download built .exe" - and those buttons should work on any fork, branch, PR, etc. And they should add all the necessary build infrastructure to achieve that. It turns out that at scale, build infrastructure is pretty cheap to run, since caching is so…
Making a .deb isn't as simple as it might seem. If you want to use shared libraries, especially so. Which version of Ubuntu/Debian/Mint/... whatever are you targetting? You can tools like FPM[1] (which is awesome btw, used it for some great hacks in the past), but that won't make you .debs that are necessarily done to the debian guidelines but usable.
There are a load os SaaS companies that do that allow you to make multiple targets though, so perhaps some integrations there would work.
Re: A currently maintained fork of SSHFS
#14Discovered that you can replace sshfs with rclone. And the project appear to be way more active : https://github.com/rclone/rclone Edit: cf: https://rclone.org/commands/rclone_mount/
how so? rclone is more like scp to me only.
Re: A currently maintained fork of SSHFS
#15Unfortunately, this fork does not look very vivid. Last commit in March, almost not activity in terms of PRs and issues. I would not bet on it.
What sort of activity level are you expecting from a stable project?
Re: A currently maintained fork of SSHFS
#16Re: A currently maintained fork of SSHFS
#17Re: A currently maintained fork of SSHFS
#18Discovered that you can replace sshfs with rclone. And the project appear to be way more active : https://github.com/rclone/rclone Edit: cf: https://rclone.org/commands/rclone_mount/
how so? rclone is more like scp to me only.
Re: A currently maintained fork of SSHFS
#19rclone mount is my go-to now for sshfs functionality - better performance, stability and caching options
Re: A currently maintained fork of SSHFS
#20The main file is a C file which is nearly 5,000 lines long. Impressive. https://github.com/deadbeefsociety/sshfs/blob/main/sshfs.c
Both impressive and scary