Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 598594
missing mount.cifs (cifs-utils) after yum upgrade
Last modified: 2011-04-04 12:49:10 EDT
Description of problem:
Yum upgrade from Fedora 12 to 13 on a x86_64 system seems to have deleted mount.cifs from my system and that made a few things fail. Seems it is part of cifs-utils, which wasn't installed by the upgrade.
Looks like there's a cifs.ko module that is invoked on a mount, but that one kept claiming that no username was specified and thus mount would fail.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
missing a release installed 4.4-3
Don't know, as I can't back out to Fedora 12 to try it.
Steps to Reproduce:
1. yum upgrade from f12 to f13
2. try to mount a cifs share
CIFS VFS: cifs_mount failed w/return code = -22
CIFS VFS: No username specified
After installing cifs-utils, everything works as before.
After a brief chat with Simo, he agrees that the right way to fix this is to have the samba-client package carry a dependency on cifs-utils. It would be nice if there were another way to do this, but RPM sort of constrains us here.
I think after a few releases have gone by then we should be able to remove the dependency (I'm thinking F16).
Can't look ahead that far (18~20 months?) but does this mean that mount.cifs disappears by then and cifs.ko will handle smb client mounts as mount.cifs does now?
No, this would simply be a packaging change to ease us over the transition to a separate cifs-utils package. At some point, we wouldn't reasonably expect someone to attempt an upgrade across too many releases and at that point we can just remove the dependency.
I'd assert that an upgrade from F13 directly to F16 wouldn't be an expected activity and so at that point we won't need the samba-client package to carry the dependency any longer. Anyone will either be doing a new install or would do an intermediate upgrade to a different release.
This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database. Reassigning to the new owner of this component.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 558368 ***