fluiday / macfuse

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/macfuse
Other
0 stars 0 forks source link

sshfs does not follow symbolic links #167

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
What steps will reproduce the problem?
Mount a sshfs file system that contains some symbolic links

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
Expect to follow symbolic links.  Instead you get an error message saying
that it can not resolve the link.  

Original issue reported on code.google.com by yqi...@gmail.com on 6 May 2007 at 2:54

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
Which version of sshfs are you using? Which version of MacFUSE? Did you look at 
the "follow_symlinks" 
command-line option to sshfs?

Original comment by si...@gmail.com on 6 May 2007 at 3:53

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
I don't know about the original poster - I am aware of the command line option 
- but
I would like to see follow symlinks be added to the gui as a checkbox in the 
next
revision of sshfs because it can be fairly important. Or else preferences be 
enabled
for the gui to allow setting of what are typically command line options.

Thank you!

Original comment by devwild on 7 May 2007 at 3:35

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
yqiang: The behavior is as designed. Unless the symbolic link is a relative 
link whose target is within the sshfs 
volume in question, the link should resolve as you expect. If the link's target 
is absolute, or points to something 
that would happen to be outside the sshfs volume in question, the link will 
either not resolve (because the target 
doesn't exist locally) or will resolve incorrectly (unless you *do* want it to 
point to something local). The 
follow_symlinks option forces sshfs to resolve symlinks on the server side, but 
then you won't see them as 
symlinks in your volume, which can be rather jarring from a purist standpoint, 
but it's up to you.

Original comment by si...@gmail.com on 7 May 2007 at 6:59

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by si...@gmail.com on 7 May 2007 at 6:59