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 we should fix the package relationships between fuse3 and fuse. I'll followup in #927291 with suggestions. Updated MBF text proposal: > 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. > > Please migrate your package to fuse3, which is actively > maintained. It would be great if we could remove fuse 2.x in > the forky development cycle. > > If you cannot migrate yet, please at least update your Depends: > line. If you currently have: > Depends: fuse > please update that to: > Depends: fuse3 (>= 3.10.1-3) | fuse (<< 3) > > This allows mount.fuse and fusermount to be provided by fuse3, > which is what the majority of new installs already have [1]. > > [1] compare https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=fuse > and https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=fuse3 Does that sound good? Chris
