On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 23:24:23 +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler <z...@debian.org> wrote: > Stephen, > and everyone else who pointed out that coinstallability is a > non-issue - thanks!
You’re welcome! > 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. Your suggestion there seems fine to me. I’d love to hear Laszlo’s thoughts on the topic too! > 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. I would add a reference to https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse/releases/tag/fuse-3.0.0 (which isn’t a great migration guide but does list all the significant changes people working on this will encounter). > > 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? It does to me, with the added reference above! Regards, Stephen
pgpZen7hGYit8.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
