GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 609678
This tool don't recognize my nfs installation
Last modified: 2010-02-15 11:34:39 UTC
I'm using Archlinux, and this tool say to me that I must install nfs or samba in order to work, but nfs is installed! and if I install samba it starts, but don't let me share folder with nfs... there must be some problem to find the nfs installation. (I've tried also with daemon running) checking for nfs/samba can be good, but you should be able to IGNORE this warning, expecially if it's bugged. Fabio 11/02/10
Thanks for the report. Do you have a file at /etc/init.d/nfs, and in your /etc/rcX.D/ dirs?
archlinux has his scripts in /etc/rc.d/ and ntf is started with /etc/rc.d/nfs-common or /etc/rc.d/nfs-server. I'm not to familiar with it. http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Nfs
OK, so the problem is just that we need to detect nfs-server and nfs-common - for now we only know about nfs, nfs-kernel-server and nfs-user-server. This is a trivial two-lines fix that I can do today. Just to be sure, I presume services-admin doesn't show the NFS services, does it?
I've pushed a fix as d3f9253, which should be available in 2.29.91. Please confirm that it's the case when you can. BTW, for your next reports, it's better to use a clearer/shorter title: "This tool" doesn't add anything to the summary, and "my nfs installation" isn't precise enough. I'd have used something like: > shares-admin doesn't detect NFS on ArchLinux VERSION Thanks!
okk sorry, But I have still a dubit... shares-admin should detect the binary of nfs or the running daemon? I think the binary, infact the error say: you should *install* at least samba or nfs...
Yeah, now you'll know a large part of program's activity is fooling users pretending you know better than them the state of their system. ;-) Actually, since shares-admin is not (yet?) clever enough to check whether the require packages are installed, it merely checks that the NFS/Samba service is present. No need for the daemon running at that precise moment, nor even the executable to exist - just the right script at the right place. This works most of the time. Of course, ideally, we should distinguish a few different cases (support present but not enabled, present and enabled but not running at the moment...). But until somebody works on it...
I think this check should be ignored by the user