Hi, On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 20:02:48 +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler <z...@debian.org> 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-list. > > Chris > > --- > > Subject: SOURCE: move from fuse to fuse3 > > Source: SOURCE > Version: VERSION > Severity: normal > > Dear Maintainer, > > your package currently (Build-)Depends on fuse - that is > fuse 2.x. A newer version of fuse, fuse3, is available > since at least buster. > > fuse (2.x) and fuse3 are not co-installable. On a typical > Debian Desktop install, fuse3 is installed, and fuse 2.x > cannot be installed. > > This effect can be observed in the popcon graphs: > https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=fuse > https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=fuse3 > > Please migrate your package to fuse3, so our users can > actually use it, and we can remove fuse 2.x in forky.
There are two separate concerns here: the fuse binary package used to provide
fusermount etc., and the library used by FUSE programs.
fuse and fuse3 are not co-installable, but that only affects fusermount and
co. libfuse2 and libfuse3 are co-installable.
This means that packages build-depending on libfuse-dev can produce binary
packages usable with fuse3; see for example loggedfs’s debian/control:
[…]
Build-Depends:
debhelper-compat (= 13),
libeasyloggingpp-dev,
libfuse-dev,
libpcre2-dev,
libxml2-dev,
[…]
Depends: fuse (<< 3) | fuse3 (>= 3.10.1-3), ${misc:Depends}, ${shlibs:Depends}
I have a number of libfuse2-based packages running with fuse3, everything
works fine.
This doesn’t mean that the MBF isn’t warranted — migrating off of fuse would
be a good thing. There is some work involved however; see
https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse/releases/tag/fuse-3.0.0 for details
(perhaps the MBF message could include that).
https://bugs.debian.org/918984 and
https://bugs.debian.org/927291 are also relevant (although as mentioned
above, the latter isn’t a concern in practice).
Regards,
Stephen
pgpxC6zCt4q25.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
