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).
Details
Details
- Reviewers
mat - Group Reviewers
portmgr - Commits
- rP452924: Add support for libfuse3 (sysutils/fusefs-libs3).
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.
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rP FreeBSD ports repository
- Lint
Lint Skipped - Unit
Tests Skipped
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
Alternative solution to provide USES support for fusefs-libs3 by means of an optional argument to "USES=fuse".
Comment Actions
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.
Comment Actions
The new version is nased on sqlite.mk, which already complied with the review requirements.
| Mk/Uses/fuse.mk | ||
|---|---|---|
| 19 | 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. | |
Comment Actions
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 ;-)
Comment Actions
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
Comment Actions
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.