F9 Alpha spinning
kevin.kofler at chello.at
Sat Jan 26 16:34:15 UTC 2008
Szabolcs Szakacsits <szaka <at> ntfs-3g.org> writes:
> Ntfs-3g has no static copy of any library.
That's just a matter of terminology, what's sure is that your fuse-lite fork is
> If you're interested then you may read the text starting at "The big
> change this time is ..." at the below URL for the explanation why you're
> misunderstanding the situation:
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.
Your worries about old FUSE versions being used are also unfounded when it
comes to Fedora, as Fedora upgrades such packages regularly, often within days
of the upstream release, and if it's useful to improve ntfs-3g, the upgrade is
even more likely to get pushed quickly.
So I think ntfs-3g should really be built against the external FUSE in Fedora,
as by our guidelines:
Normally, if libraries need patches to make dependent packages to work well, we
just apply the patches to the library rather than shipping a fork.
Spot (Tom Callaway), if you're reading this, can you elaborate on the decision
of defaulting to internal fuse-lite in the Fedora ntfs-3g package? To me, this
decision appears to contradict your own guidelines.
More information about the devel