Re: Intent to MBF: move from fuse to fuse3

* László Böszörményi (GCS) [240829 20:55]: > On Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 11:14 PM Chris Hofstaedtler 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 depe

Re: Intent to MBF: move from fuse to fuse3

On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 2:56 PM László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote: > On Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 11:14 PM Chris Hofstaedtler 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 ques

Re: Intent to MBF: move from fuse to fuse3

On Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 11:14 PM Chris Hofstaedtler 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

Re: Intent to MBF: move from fuse to fuse3

Hi, * László Böszörményi (GCS) [240825 18:30]: > Thanks for adding me, I can't follow -devel. Sorry for not thinking about that earlier > On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 11:24 PM Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: > > Updated MBF text proposal: > [...] > > Does that sound good? > This sounds right to me, exce

Re: Intent to MBF: move from fuse to fuse3

Hi, Thanks for adding me, I can't follow -devel. On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 11:24 PM Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: > Updated MBF text proposal: [...] > Does that sound good? This sounds right to me, except that the fuse package should be removed in the Trixie release already. It was obsoleted more tha

Re: Intent to MBF: move from fuse to fuse3

On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 23:24:23 +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler 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.

Re: Intent to MBF: move from fuse to fuse3

Stephen, and everyone else who pointed out that coinstallability is a non-issue - thanks! 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

Re: Intent to MBF: move from fuse to fuse3

Hi, On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 20:02:48 +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: > fuse (2.x) is long obsolete, yet we still have a long tail of packages > (Build-)Depending on it. Given fuse and fuse3 are not coinstallable, > IMO we should get packages off fuse. > > Below is my proposed MBF wording, and a dd-