Mark Geisert wrote:
Hi Jon,
Thanks for the helpful review comments.
cygport is a wondrous tool. My issues were solved by making a simple tar.xz of my
local source tree, renaming it to have the version number expected by the cygport
script, placing that file and the cygport script in a test d
Hi Jon,
Thanks for the helpful review comments. More below.
Jon Turney wrote:
On 10/03/2022 06:16, Mark Geisert wrote:
[...]> A few small comments on the cygport file
HOMEPAGE="https://github.com/mgeisert/cygfuse";
#SRC_URI="http://maxrnd.com/~mark/cygwin/x86_64/release/cy
Space. I will shortly be providing an sshfs FUSE app, to be
covered by a separate ITP.
Importantly, cygfuse depends on an underlying Windows FUSE
implementation: WinFSP. In fact the Cygwin library code was provided
by the author of WinFSP. I'm just providing a bona-fide Cygwin
packag
sshfs FUSE app, to be covered by
a separate ITP.
Importantly, cygfuse depends on an underlying Windows FUSE
implementation: WinFSP. In fact the Cygwin library code was provided by
the author of WinFSP. I'm just providing a bona-fide Cygwin package for
the code.
WinFSP, and thus cygfus
sshfs FUSE app, to be covered by
a separate ITP.
Importantly, cygfuse depends on an underlying Windows FUSE
implementation: WinFSP. In fact the Cygwin library code was provided by
the author of WinFSP. I'm just providing a bona-fide Cygwin package for
the code.
WinFSP, and thus cygfus
ITP.
Importantly, cygfuse depends on an underlying Windows FUSE implementation:
WinFSP. In fact the Cygwin library code was provided by the author of
WinFSP. I'm just providing a bona-fide Cygwin package for the code.
WinFSP, and thus cygfuse, is made available under GPLv3 for Free/
e changed Subject: to reflect what's being discussed now. When we
>>have a
>>consensus cygfuse I'll issue an ITP for it.
>>
>>I've now updated the cygfuse repository on GitHub so it is more neutral
>>about
>>FUSE implementations. It can be seen at
>
On 9/20/16, 10:33 PM, Mark Geisert wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Bill Zissimopoulos wrote:
>> Mark, has there been any additional progress on this?
>
>No activity. I was not expecting Dokany to be fully integrated before
>ITPing cygfuse, but I had hoped to hear at least that
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Bill Zissimopoulos wrote:
On 9/8/16, 1:03 AM, Mark Geisert wrote:
I've changed Subject: to reflect what's being discussed now. When we
have a
consensus cygfuse I'll issue an ITP for it.
I've now updated the cygfuse repository on GitHub so it is mor
On 9/8/16, 1:03 AM, Mark Geisert wrote:
>I've changed Subject: to reflect what's being discussed now. When we
>have a
>consensus cygfuse I'll issue an ITP for it.
>
>I've now updated the cygfuse repository on GitHub so it is more neutral
>about
>FUSE i
Mark Geisert wrote:
[... some stuff ...]
I've changed Subject: to reflect what's being discussed now. When we have a
consensus cygfuse I'll issue an ITP for it.
I've now updated the cygfuse repository on GitHub so it is more neutral about
FUSE implementations. It
11 matches
Mail list logo
