Bug#549412: freebsd-utils: fails to mount nfs: mount_nfs not found
I find your use of the word complaining disrespectful. A bug report serves to give feedback, and being polite should be answered politely. The point is that one cannot have things both ways. Either kfreebsd is indeed to become core as the announcements advertise (and I imagine the developers wish, otherwise why would they be working on this?), or not. NFS is a core functionality in many ways. It is therefore legitimate that this bug be reported. Alan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#549412: freebsd-utils: fails to mount nfs: mount_nfs not found
Alan BRASLAU alan.bras...@cea.fr (28/09/2010): I find your use of the word complaining disrespectful. A bug report serves to give feedback, and being polite should be answered politely. Insisting on a particular severity regardless of the maintainer's opinion is disrespectful. (Oh wait, the maintainers are even porters, so maybe they can figure out which severity is appropriate?) NFS is a core functionality in many ways. It is therefore legitimate that this bug be reported. That doesn't mean people can annoy maintainers until the feature is implemented. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#549412: freebsd-utils: fails to mount nfs: mount_nfs not found
On Tuesday 28 September 2010 10:54:26 Cyril Brulebois wrote: Alan BRASLAU alan.bras...@cea.fr (28/09/2010): I find your use of the word complaining disrespectful. A bug report serves to give feedback, and being polite should be answered politely. Insisting on a particular severity regardless of the maintainer's opinion is disrespectful. (Oh wait, the maintainers are even porters, so maybe they can figure out which severity is appropriate?) NFS is a core functionality in many ways. It is therefore legitimate that this bug be reported. That doesn't mean people can annoy maintainers until the feature is implemented. So sensitive! All one asks for is politeness. The use of complaining, annoying, etc. shows no respect for the community. Do developers really want to be isolated, or are they indeed interested in getting feedback from users/testers? A bug report reflects needs. Maintainers can politely give information on meeting these needs (or on the inappropriateness/marginality of these particular needs). The problem with the current issue is that the maintainers/promoters of kfreebsd ask about fitness for release and would somehow like for this kernel to be adopted by part of the community. Functionality so basic (and so long-standing) as NFS should be included. I suppose that the porting is not so trivial, otherwise it would already be included. But much contradictory information on this question can be found on the web, including messages from maintainers claiming that it is there! The purpose of the bug report is to clarify the situation, not to provoke over-sensitive reactions on the part of developers. Tit-for-tat responses are indeed unproductive and demotivating. Such reactions show annoyance, and annoyance reveals unease. Alan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#549412: freebsd-utils: fails to mount nfs: mount_nfs not found
Please can you guys take this off-list. Thanks. 2010/9/28, Alan BRASLAU alan.bras...@cea.fr: On Tuesday 28 September 2010 10:54:26 Cyril Brulebois wrote: Alan BRASLAU alan.bras...@cea.fr (28/09/2010): I find your use of the word complaining disrespectful. A bug report serves to give feedback, and being polite should be answered politely. Insisting on a particular severity regardless of the maintainer's opinion is disrespectful. (Oh wait, the maintainers are even porters, so maybe they can figure out which severity is appropriate?) NFS is a core functionality in many ways. It is therefore legitimate that this bug be reported. That doesn't mean people can annoy maintainers until the feature is implemented. So sensitive! All one asks for is politeness. The use of complaining, annoying, etc. shows no respect for the community. Do developers really want to be isolated, or are they indeed interested in getting feedback from users/testers? A bug report reflects needs. Maintainers can politely give information on meeting these needs (or on the inappropriateness/marginality of these particular needs). The problem with the current issue is that the maintainers/promoters of kfreebsd ask about fitness for release and would somehow like for this kernel to be adopted by part of the community. Functionality so basic (and so long-standing) as NFS should be included. I suppose that the porting is not so trivial, otherwise it would already be included. But much contradictory information on this question can be found on the web, including messages from maintainers claiming that it is there! The purpose of the bug report is to clarify the situation, not to provoke over-sensitive reactions on the part of developers. Tit-for-tat responses are indeed unproductive and demotivating. Such reactions show annoyance, and annoyance reveals unease. Alan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201009281118.24368.alan.bras...@cea.fr -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#549412: freebsd-utils: fails to mount nfs: mount_nfs not found
Alan BRASLAU a écrit : On Tuesday 06 July 2010 18:49:52 Aurelien Jarno wrote: If some users consider the use of NFS very important, they can probably help to solve this issue. They are, by very patiently (and politely) filing bug reports. Also by spending time testing. Not all are programmers, neither having the skills nor the time to look into details. Exactly, that's why users should wait for a programmer to have the time instead of complaining. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#549412: freebsd-utils: fails to mount nfs: mount_nfs not found
http://www.debian.org/News/2009/20091007 `` Debian pushes development of kFreeBSD port October 7th, 2009 The Debian Release Team is pleased to announce that it sees the port of the Debian system to the FreeBSD kernel fit to be handled equal with the other release ports. The upcoming release codenamed 'Squeeze' is planned to be the first Debian distribution to be released with Linux and FreeBSD kernels. The kFreeBSD architectures for the AMD64/Intel EM64T and i386 processor architectures are now release architectures. Severe bugs on these architectures will be considered release critical the same way as bugs on other architectures like armel or i386 are. If a particular package does not build or work properly on such an architecture this problem is considered release-critical. '' A missing mount_nfs makes kFreeBSD pretty incomplete for use. The answers in this bug report makes the news announcement pretty misleading. Furthermore, the handling the problem in such a way At most important, but may be even just wishlist: I assume you did notice “package maintainer's or release manager's opinion” here. Which of them are you? No need for severity ping pong. is pretty unfair for the good intention of users who are willing to follow Debian in this direction. A reasonable interpretation of the text of the news announcement would even make this issue release-critical. See also: http://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2010/01/msg00099.html Re: NFS on Debian GNU/kFreeBSD? To: The Anarcat anar...@koumbit.org Cc: debian-...@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: NFS on Debian GNU/kFreeBSD? From: Aurelien Jarno aurel...@aurel32.net Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:16:04 +0100 Message-id: 20100121091604.gc16...@hall.aurel32.net In-reply-to: 20100121015022.gf27...@anarcat.ath.cx References: 20100121015022.gf27...@anarcat.ath.cx On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 08:50:22PM -0500, The Anarcat wrote: Hi! I wonder if there are any plans to support NFS in Debian GNU/kFreeBSD. At any rate, how would it be supported? nfs-utils is probably not the right way, so I guess we'd need to port something from FreeBSD directly? mount_nfs is available in freebsd-utils, so you can easily do NFS mounts using using mount -t nfs. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net Wishlist, fantasy, or serious? Alan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#549412: freebsd-utils: fails to mount nfs: mount_nfs not found
Alan BRASLAU a écrit : http://www.debian.org/News/2009/20091007 `` Debian pushes development of kFreeBSD port October 7th, 2009 The Debian Release Team is pleased to announce that it sees the port of the Debian system to the FreeBSD kernel fit to be handled equal with the other release ports. The upcoming release codenamed 'Squeeze' is planned to be the first Debian distribution to be released with Linux and FreeBSD kernels. The kFreeBSD architectures for the AMD64/Intel EM64T and i386 processor architectures are now release architectures. Severe bugs on these architectures will be considered release critical the same way as bugs on other architectures like armel or i386 are. If a particular package does not build or work properly on such an architecture this problem is considered release-critical. '' A missing mount_nfs makes kFreeBSD pretty incomplete for use. The answers in this bug report makes the news announcement pretty misleading. Furthermore, the handling the problem in such a way At most important, but may be even just wishlist: I assume you did notice “package maintainer's or release manager's opinion” here. Which of them are you? No need for severity ping pong. is pretty unfair for the good intention of users who are willing to follow Debian in this direction. A reasonable interpretation of the text of the news announcement would even make this issue release-critical. If some users consider the use of NFS very important, they can probably help to solve this issue. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#549412: freebsd-utils: fails to mount nfs: mount_nfs not found
On Tuesday 06 July 2010 18:49:52 Aurelien Jarno wrote: If some users consider the use of NFS very important, they can probably help to solve this issue. They are, by very patiently (and politely) filing bug reports. Also by spending time testing. Not all are programmers, neither having the skills nor the time to look into details. Alan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#549412: freebsd-utils: fails to mount nfs: mount_nfs not found
found 549412 8.0-10 thanks when trying to mount nfs filesystems, it appears to be missing the mount_nfs command: mount 127.0.0.1:/opt/ltsp /mnt mount: exec mount_nfs not found: No such file or directory Any progress? This also happens in vanilla install of: http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/kfreebsd-i386/20100221-11:20/monolithic/ Jari -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#549412: freebsd-utils: fails to mount nfs: mount_nfs not found
severity 549412 serious thanks Makes the installation unusable in a typical network. E.g. can't mount the /home disk from a remote server. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#549412: freebsd-utils: fails to mount nfs: mount_nfs not found
Makes the installation unusable in a typical network. E.g. can't mount the /home disk from a remote server. Petr Salinger petr.salin...@seznam.cz writes: severity 549412 important thanks At most important, but may be even just wishlist: A missing NFS support is unsuitable for release. serious is a severe violation of Debian policy (roughly, it violates a must or required directive), or, in the package maintainer's or release manager's opinion, makes the package unsuitable for release. As described above The mount_nfs command is still provided only by freebsd-hackedutils: http://ftp.debian-ports.org/debian/pool-kfreebsd-i386/main/f/freebsd-hackedutils/freebsd-hackedutils_6.1-4_kfreebsd-i386.deb http://ftp.debian-ports.org/debian/pool-kfreebsd-amd64/main/f/freebsd-hackedutils/freebsd-hackedutils_6.1-4_kfreebsd-amd64.deb freebsd-hackedutils is not available from repositories testing or unstable. Jari -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#549412: freebsd-utils: fails to mount nfs: mount_nfs not found
Jari Aalto jari.aa...@cante.net (11/04/2010): Petr Salinger petr.salin...@seznam.cz writes: severity 549412 important Yes. A missing NFS support is unsuitable for release. No. serious is a severe violation of Debian policy (roughly, it violates a must or required directive), or, in the package maintainer's or release manager's opinion, makes the package unsuitable for release. As described above I assume you did notice “package maintainer's or release manager's opinion” here. Which of them are you? No need for severity ping pong. The mount_nfs command is still provided only by freebsd-hackedutils: http://ftp.debian-ports.org/debian/pool-kfreebsd-i386/main/f/freebsd-hackedutils/freebsd-hackedutils_6.1-4_kfreebsd-i386.deb http://ftp.debian-ports.org/debian/pool-kfreebsd-amd64/main/f/freebsd-hackedutils/freebsd-hackedutils_6.1-4_kfreebsd-amd64.deb freebsd-hackedutils is not available from repositories testing or unstable. That's what Petr wrote. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#549412: freebsd-utils: fails to mount nfs: mount_nfs not found
Package: freebsd-utils
Version: 7.2-8
Severity: normal
when trying to mount nfs filesystems, it appears to be missing the mount_nfs
command:
mount 127.0.0.1:/opt/ltsp /mnt
mount: exec mount_nfs not found: No such file or directory
there appear to be commented out entries in debian/rules, but uncommenting them
and attempting to build myself resulted in:
mount_nfs.c:229: warning: no previous prototype for ‘usage’
mount_nfs.c: In function ‘usage’:
mount_nfs.c:229: error: expected declaration specifiers before ‘__dead2’
mount_nfs.c:246: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’ before
‘{’ token
...snip...
mount_nfs.c:1172: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’
before ‘{’ token
mount_nfs.c:1179: error: old-style parameter declarations in prototyped
function definition
mount_nfs.c:1179: error: expected ‘{’ at end of input
*** Error code 1
Stop in /home/bsd/freebsd-utils-7.2/sbin/mount_nfs.
make: *** [freebsd-utils-stamp] Error 1
dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules build gave error exit status 2
debuild: fatal error at line 1324:
dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -D -us -uc failed
thanks for working on Debian GNU/kFreeBSD!
live well,
vagrant
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
