2011/7/16 Mike Hommey <m...@glandium.org>: > On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 04:10:18PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: >> Hi! >> >> There are 23 packages in unstable which can't be installed on Debian >> GNU/kFreeBSD because of their unconditional dependency on fuse-utils. >> On this platform, fuse4bsd should be used instead. >> >> I indent to file one bug report for each of them: >> >> wikipediafs sshfs smbnetfs s3ql rofs python-fuse pytagsfs plptools >> mythtvfs ntfsprogs libpam-mount libfuse-perl libconfig-model-perl >> httpfs2 gphotofs gfarm2fs fusedav fts flickrfs curlftpfs bindfs avfs >> aptfs >> >> using the following template: >> >> <template> >> Package: %package% >> Severity: important >> User: debian-...@lists.debian.org >> Usertags: kfreebsd >> >> Hi >> >> This package is not installable on kfreebsd-i386 or kfreebsd-amd64 because it >> depends unconditionally on fuse-utils. Please considering adjusting the >> dependency from: >> >> Depends: fuse-utils >> >> to: >> >> Depends: fuse-utils [linux-any] | fuse4bsd [kfreebsd-any] >> >> If it requires fuse-utils specifically because of the command-line >> functionality >> in that package (and not just to obtain a FUSE daemon), please reply to this >> bug report so we can try to find a solution. > > IIRC, that's actually a requirement of libfuse itself, not directly from the > packages using libfuse. So why shouldn't that be libfuse's job to depend > on these? For the very few rdeps that *don't* rely on the API that uses > them?
That would make sense to me, but libfuse2 only Suggests fuse-utils. CCing the maintainer. Daniel, are all these dependencies gratuitous? Should they be removed instead of adjusted to support fuse4bsd? -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOfDtXN=kH=7+j+gp+qxerjpxny4fdtgqpdo3wuacof_xdd...@mail.gmail.com
