severity 743360 minor thanks OK, I've found the problem and it was not in fuse but in a test package locally.
It would be very useful if the fuse postinst was fixed though:
if [ -x /sbin/MAKEDEV ] && [ ! -e /dev/fuse ]
then
echo "Creating fuse device..."
cd /dev
MAKEDEV fuse
chmod 0666 /dev/fuse
else
echo "MAKEDEV not installed, skipping device node
creation."
fi
This is misleading. The error message conflates the lack of MAKEDEV
with a missing /dev/fuse which means that if /dev/fuse exists but
makedev is not installed (and udev is the primary alternative in the
fuse dependencies), then fuse reports a misleading error.
fuse then goes on to try udevadm control --reload-rules without
checking that the fuse module has been loaded, which results in udevadm
outputting "device not found". Together with the message that the
device node creation has been skipped, this leads to predictable
confusion.
The device existence should be checked separately and the "skipping
device node creation" message omitted *only* if MAKEDEV does not exist
and /dev/fuse does not exist. Currently, the else applies to either
condition.
Then the postinst should check the output of lsmod and produce a
helpful message about the fuse module preferably *without* failing to
install the package.
So there are three bugs here:
0: fuse fails to install if the module has not been loaded - confirmed
& reproduced
1: fuse blames the lack of a device node when it is the lack of the
module which is the problem, yet fuse does not even check lsmod
2: fuse reports that the device node was not created because MAKEDEV is
not installed when MAKEDEV has nothing to do with the actual problem -
the device node exists, it just has no kernel module to go with it.
Please fix the postinst to be much more useful and to correctly handle
the lack of the fuse kernel module *without* causing the package
installation to fail but *with* a noisy warning on package
installation / configuration.
--
Neil Williams
=============
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
