USES support for sysutils/fusefs-libs3 FUSE support library

[se]

Summary

I have just committed a new port for version 3 of the FUSE library.
That library is incompatible with the prior version 2 and is meant to co-exist.
File system user modules need to be programmed to use either one of these library versions.
I have prepared an upgrade of fusefs-sshfs to version 3.3.0, which will become the first port to rely on sysutils/fusefs-libs3.
The diff adds file for "USES fuse3" to Mk/Uses, which is mostly identical to "fuse.mk".
It may be appropriate to instead modify fuse.mk to support a version option (i.e. "USES=fuse:3", with "USES=fuse" still referencing the eventually to become obsolete version 2, which will see no further development).

Test Plan

Decide about the appropriateness of a new file fuse3.mk (considering the alternative of modifying fuse.mk).
Verify correct function with a test port of sshfs-3.3.0 using the new USES parameter.

[se]

Alternative solution to provide USES support for fusefs-libs3 by means of an optional argument to "USES=fuse".

[mat]

Could you use devel/arcanist, or at least generate a diff with full context like it does, with svn diff -x -U9999 or git diff -U9999.

[se]

New diff with full context attached.

[mat]

Mk/Uses/fuse.mk

7 ↗

(On Diff #34126)

This needs to be updated.

14 ↗

(On Diff #34126)

This should probably be == 2 (or whatever version is in sysutils/fusefs-libs. With a default set before.

19 ↗

(On Diff #34126)

And then, this should be done previously, whilst checking fuefs_ARGS content.

[se]

Modify as suggested by mat.

[se]

The new version is nased on sqlite.mk, which already complied with the review requirements.

[se]

Mk/Uses/fuse.mk

19 ↗

(On Diff #34126)

Since a default value is assigned after fuse_ARGS has been checked, I think the reporting of an invalid parameter is best done after the checks for vsalid parameter values, as e.g. done in sqlite.mk.

[se]

Add "library" to IGNORE message

[mat]

can version 2 and 3 be installed at the same time ?

[se]

In D12694#264079, @mat wrote:

can version 2 and 3 be installed at the same time ?

Yes, they are meant to co-exist, since they have incompatible APIs and all currently committed FUSE user modules still need version 2.

I have prepared an update of SSHFS to version 3.3.0 and that update will require version 3 of the library.
That update is waiting for the results of this review ;-)

[se]

Am 19.10.17 um 16:25 schrieb se (Stefan Eßer):

se added a comment.

In https://reviews.freebsd.org/D12694#264079, @mat wrote:

> can version 2 and 3 be installed at the same time ?


Yes, they are meant to co-exist, since they have incompatible APIs and all currently committed FUSE user modules still need version 2.

I have prepared an update of SSHFS to version 3.3.0 and that update will require version 3 of the library.
That update is waiting for the results of this review ;-)

Hi Mathieu,

I have answered your previous questions, 5 days ago.

Is there anything else I need to do to get this change committed?

And: Who will do the commit, once it is approved?

Regards, STefan

[mat]

In D12694#265267, @se wrote:

Hi Mathieu,

I have answered your previous questions, 5 days ago.

I am sorry this volunteer project does not meet your personal review time criteria.

Is there anything else I need to do to get this change committed?

And: Who will do the commit, once it is approved?

This looks good, feel free to commit it.