Re: FUSE 3 transition
On Sat, 30 Jul 2022, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 9:56 PM Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> > - Is there a plan to change reverse-dependencies to depend on fuse3, so
> > that such conflicts don't occur?
> Please note I do not maintain the reverse dependent fuse2 packages.
> But I will ping those maintainers as I don't want to ship Bookworm
> with fuse2. Its development stopped two years ago and fuse3 is here
> for six years. I think it was enough time to adapt to it.
Please open bug reports with important severity and mention that you plan
to raise those to "serious" in X months.
Doing test rebuilds of those while replacing libfuse-dev with libfuse3-dev
in Build-Depends will likely help to see if there are some that can be
trivially switched.
But this is definetely a much-needed transition that needs some work and
care. It will not happen without that.
Another (maybe stupid) idea to explore: I would suggest to rename the
"fuse" binary package to "fuse2" (without adding any Provides) so that any
dependency on "fuse" actually installs "fuse3" and we will discover sooner
if some packages are not working with fuse3.
Cheers,
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Raphaël Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org>
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ The Debian Handbook: https://debian-handbook.info/get/
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Debian Long Term Support: https://deb.li/LTS
Reply to: