Hi László,
On Oct 08 2016, "László Böszörményi (GCS)" <g...@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi Nikolaus,
>
> On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 5:40 AM, Nikolaus Rath <nikol...@rath.org> wrote:
>> Would you still be able to (and interested in) getting a libfuse3
>> package into stretch?
>
> Indeed, already saw the pre-release Git tag on it.
>
>> If so, by what time would you require the upstream release (currently
>> I've only made a pre-release)?
>
> It's complicated. Of course, I do _not_ require an upstream release -
> if it meant to Stretch, I would expect its release when it's stable
> and ready to be supported for years in that release. Then you may
> release early, release often to get feedback from projects
> experiencing with it.
I think libfuse3 is ready for a release and will be supported for many
years to come. But then, I may have missed something. That's why I
wanted to wait for a while to give people a chance to experiment with
the pre-release.
I think the final release will definitely be before the end of the
year. But if you need an earlier release to get it into stretch, I'd try
to meet that date.
>> libfuse3 breaks backward compatibility, so I'd imagine it would ship in
>> addition to libfuse2.
>
> That mean these are co-installable?
The libraries are. But both tarballs also install the fusermount and
mount.fuse binaries, the fuse udev rules, and the fuse.conf file. But
these are intended to be forward and backward compatible, so you could
just pick one version to install.
>> As far as the fuse binary package is concerned, I'm not so sure. I think
>> it would be preferable to build it from fuse 3.0 (the fusermount binary
>> should be backwards compatible). However, fuse 3 no longer includes
>> ulockmgr_server. In theory, it has been factored out into a separate
>> project, but I am not aware of any users and I am not able to find the
>> project....
>
> I don't know ulockmgr_server either, but may fuse and fuse3 source
> packages (with their libraries and binaries) may co-exist? Then fuse
> can be removed from Debian after Stretch. Until you release the latter
> as stable, it can go to experimental. But need to package it first.
The source packages can certainly co-exist. The question is: do you want
to generate the fuse binary package from the fuse or fuse3 source
package? The advantage of using the newer version is that it's more
actively maintained. The disadvantage is that you loose ulckmgr_server.
Maybe you could just try to build fuse from fuse3 in unstable, and see
if anyone complains about the lack of ulockmgr?
Best,
-Nikolaus
--
GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F
»Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«
