On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 17:23 +0000, yareckon wrote:
> Looks like there is a patch to gvfs upstream. Looks like it it is still
> a bit of a workaround?
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=627567#c9 Tomas seems to
> indicate this is originally a problem with fuse? Should we be worried
> about issues with other backends that use fuse?
Yes, it's possible that the bug affects all fuse backends and not only
the gvfs one -- but there has been no answer from the fuse developers so
fa as far as I know. The bug is bad enough that I believe we shouldn't
wait until fuse developers speak up and fix it (or work around the
problem), at least for now, directly in the gvfs.
On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 17:23 +0000, yareckon wrote: /bugzilla. gnome.org/ show_bug. cgi?id= 627567# c9 Tomas seems to
> Looks like there is a patch to gvfs upstream. Looks like it it is still
> a bit of a workaround?
> https:/
> indicate this is originally a problem with fuse? Should we be worried
> about issues with other backends that use fuse?
Yes, it's possible that the bug affects all fuse backends and not only
the gvfs one -- but there has been no answer from the fuse developers so
fa as far as I know. The bug is bad enough that I believe we shouldn't
wait until fuse developers speak up and fix it (or work around the
problem), at least for now, directly in the gvfs.
--
Sent from Ubuntu