[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [kfreebsd] massive report for uninstallable FUSE packages

2011/7/16 Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 04:10:18PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>> Hi!
>> There are 23 packages in unstable which can't be installed on Debian
>> GNU/kFreeBSD because of their unconditional dependency on fuse-utils.
>> On this platform, fuse4bsd should be used instead.
>> I indent to file one bug report for each of them:
>> wikipediafs sshfs smbnetfs s3ql rofs python-fuse pytagsfs plptools
>> mythtvfs ntfsprogs libpam-mount libfuse-perl libconfig-model-perl
>> httpfs2 gphotofs gfarm2fs fusedav fts flickrfs curlftpfs bindfs avfs
>> aptfs
>> using the following template:
>> <template>
>> Package: %package%
>> Severity: important
>> User: debian-bsd@lists.debian.org
>> Usertags: kfreebsd
>> Hi
>> This package is not installable on kfreebsd-i386 or kfreebsd-amd64 because it
>> depends unconditionally on fuse-utils.  Please considering adjusting the
>> dependency from:
>>   Depends: fuse-utils
>> to:
>>   Depends: fuse-utils [linux-any] | fuse4bsd [kfreebsd-any]
>> If it requires fuse-utils specifically because of the command-line functionality
>> in that package (and not just to obtain a FUSE daemon), please reply to this
>> bug report so we can try to find a solution.
> IIRC, that's actually a requirement of libfuse itself, not directly from the
> packages using libfuse. So why shouldn't that be libfuse's job to depend
> on these? For the very few rdeps that *don't* rely on the API that uses
> them?

That would make sense to me, but libfuse2 only Suggests fuse-utils.

CCing the maintainer.  Daniel, are all these dependencies gratuitous?
Should they be removed instead of adjusted to support fuse4bsd?

Robert Millan

Reply to: