Re: Intent to MBF: move from fuse to fuse3

[Chris Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>]

* László Böszörményi (GCS) <gcs@debian.org> [240829 20:55]:
> On Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 11:14 PM Chris Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org> wrote:
> > Yeah, I agree. Do you want to upload a new src:fuse package dropping
> > the fuse binary package?
> > fuse3 already Provides: fuse, so that should be fine.
>  The question is, how many dependent packages use the binaries from
> the fuse package or just depend on it.

A handful. But given the Provides: and the compat symlinks, packages
depending on fuse today do not need to change.

> Sure, fuse3 provides fuse but
> the names of the binaries are different. For example scripts need to
> update fusermount call to fusermount3 call.

fuse3 already provides the old names as symlinks. The options of
fusermount <> fusermount3 and mount.fuse <> mount.fuse3 are the
same.

> As such, it might be
> better to ping maintainers of those packages about dropping the fuse
> binary for testing their packages first. Then after a month actually
> drop it.
> I was informed that debian-edu and grub-mount-udeb still use
> fuse-udeb, but in Trixie packages I don't see that anymore. I can drop
> that as well in a month.

Yeah, this is resolved.

> How do these sound there?

I think you can drop both the udeb and the "fuse" package
immediately.

Chris