[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: F9 Alpha spinning

On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 03:18 +0000, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Horst H. von Brand <vonbrand <at> inf.utfsm.cl> writes:
> > > Well, your arguments are pretty unconvincing, and apply to a lot of 
> > > application-library relationships, still usually library users won't fork a 
> > > library just for that, or when they do, Fedora won't ship their fork.
> > 
> > AFAIU this is an /upstream/ decision, not a Fedora one.
> It is an upstream decision to ship that fuse-lite fork in the tarball and to 
> support it. It is a Fedora decision to actually use this fork rather than 
> using --with-fuse=external. (In many cases, we even _patch_ upstream projects 
> to use system libraries where they don't support it at all, in this case, it 
> would just be a configure option.) I'm complaining about both.

The ntfs-3g spec file is currently conditionalized to use fuse-lite by
default, because:

A) I'm concerned that future ntfs-3g specific functionality in fuse-lite
won't go into FUSE.
B) The upstream FUSE lead developer thinks that fuse-lite is a good idea
in ntfs-3g.
C) I'm comaintaining FUSE in Fedora, so I should be able to handle any
security issues that might need to be doublechecked.

With that said, I'm not entirely convinced that fuse-lite is the right
decision. I might change my mind, and make the default be
--with-fuse=external, but it will be still conditionalized so that the
SRPM can be easily rebuilt to the opposite.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]