Supporting remote filesystems (SFTP, Samba, etc...) · Issue #480 · FossifyOrg/File-Manager · GitHub
Skip to content

Supporting remote filesystems (SFTP, Samba, etc...) #480

Open

Description

@ddpasa

Checklist

  • I made sure that there are no existing issues - open or closed - to which I could contribute my information.
  • I made sure that there are no existing discussions - open or closed - to which I could contribute my information.
  • I have read the FAQs inside the app (Menu -> About -> FAQs) and my problem isn't listed.
  • I have taken the time to fill in all the required details. I understand that the request will be dismissed otherwise.
  • This issue contains only one feature request.
  • I have read and understood the contribution guidelines.

Feature description

I love Fossify apps and want to contribute.

Is there any interest in supporting remote filesystems such as SFTP or Samba? If yes, I can implement them. However, I do not want to put in the time or the energy if this is not something Fossify File Manager is willing to accept and merge to mainline.

Why do you want this feature?

Remote filesystems are fairly common now, especially SFTP which is very easy to set up.

Additional information

No response

Activity

  1. added
    feature requestIssue is about a new feature or improving existing feature/behavior.
    needs triageIssue is not yet ready for PR authors to take up
    on Aug 21, 2026
  2. fossifybot commented on Aug 21, 2026

    @fossifybot
    Contributor

    Thank you for updating the issue.

  3. added
    waiting for authorIf the author does not respond, the issue will be closed. Otherwise, the label will be removed.
    and removed
    waiting for authorIf the author does not respond, the issue will be closed. Otherwise, the label will be removed.
    on Aug 21, 2026
  4. chesio commented on Aug 24, 2026

    @chesio

    @ddpasa I cannot say whether there is an interest from maintainer's side, but there certainly is an interest from users' side - see #50.

  5. ddpasa commented on Aug 24, 2026

    @ddpasa
    Author

    @ddpasa I cannot say whether there is an interest from maintainer's side, but there certainly is an interest from users' side - see #50.

    I'm happy to implement it @chesio , but I don't want to do it before getting the approval from the maintainer that they are interested in merging such a feature. It is discouraging to put time and effort into something, only to be rejected as 'not interested'. It had happened to me before.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    feature requestIssue is about a new feature or improving existing feature/behavior.needs triageIssue is not yet ready for PR authors to take up

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions