Unfortunately, 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?
[deleted]
A currently maintained fork of SSHFS
21–30 of 144 posts
Re: A currently maintained fork of SSHFS
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Presumably some kind of Makefile or similar build automation config file would be in the repo to define which versions of which tools to use to do the build.
Re: A currently maintained fork of SSHFS
#23Good, it seems people can't stand it if software just exists and does its job and doesn't get new commits each month.
The FUSE situation on Mac OS requires maintenance on the software or it will stop working.
Re: A currently maintained fork of SSHFS
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
the open build service (by suse) does that. are there others?
Re: A currently maintained fork of SSHFS
#25Discovered 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.
Mix up rclone's mount with the Crypt and maybe even the Union backend to cloud storage for a very interesting proposition. I was using a similar setup to get unlimited storage on VPSes when google was offering unlimited gsuite storage. You just need to play around caching values and options on the Crypt side if you plan on streaming data from it.
Re: A currently maintained fork of SSHFS
#26The main file is a C file which is nearly 5,000 lines long. Impressive. https://github.com/deadbeefsociety/sshfs/blob/main/sshfs.c
To me, 5000 lines of C is not impressive nor scary. Functions are pretty small, there are a lot of comments - everything seems like a normal unit with some complexity.
Re: A currently maintained fork of SSHFS
#27Unfortunately, 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.
Vivid?
Re: A currently maintained fork of SSHFS
#28Nautilus (Ubuntu's file explorer) allows to mount SFTP folders. Supposedly it uses `gvfs` under the hood.
Note that SFTP uses an SSH connection for its file transfers, so I have not seen an UI difference from SSHFS
Re: A currently maintained fork of SSHFS
#29The main file is a C file which is nearly 5,000 lines long. Impressive. https://github.com/deadbeefsociety/sshfs/blob/main/sshfs.c
Well... check out QuickJS: the bulk of the code is in a single 55k LOC C file: https://github.com/bellard/quickjs/blob/master/quickjs.c
Re: A currently maintained fork of SSHFS
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
how so? rclone is more like scp to me only.
rclone has a "mount" command.
Sorry if this is documented (I did take a quick look). Does rclone mounted do whole file compression like rsync? I don't see how the file API would support this. eg fopen, write, close, etc