Re: Intent to MBF: move from fuse to fuse3
Stephen,
and everyone else who pointed out that coinstallability is a
non-issue - thanks!
About the additional work in fuse/fuse3, #918984 and #927291, I
wonder if they are relevant to the libfuse consumers. Anyway, if we
believe fuse3 works just fine with libfuse2-* consumers, then it
seems like we should fix the package relationships between fuse3 and
fuse.
I'll followup in #927291 with suggestions.
Updated MBF text proposal:
> Subject: SOURCE: move from fuse to fuse3
>
> Source: SOURCE
> Version: VERSION
> Severity: normal
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> your package currently (Build-)Depends on fuse - that is fuse 2.x.
> A newer version of fuse, fuse3, is available since at least
> buster.
>
> Please migrate your package to fuse3, which is actively
> maintained. It would be great if we could remove fuse 2.x in
> the forky development cycle.
>
> If you cannot migrate yet, please at least update your Depends:
> line. If you currently have:
> Depends: fuse
> please update that to:
> Depends: fuse3 (>= 3.10.1-3) | fuse (<< 3)
>
> This allows mount.fuse and fusermount to be provided by fuse3,
> which is what the majority of new installs already have [1].
>
> [1] compare https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=fuse
> and https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=fuse3
Does that sound good?
Chris
Reply to: