On Sun, 2024-10-20 at 20:03 +0200, наб wrote: > Hi! > > I'd like to use an epoch so I'm asking for consensus per policy 5.6.12. > > As part of the Salvage Team's trixie view-os removal plan ‒ > RM: umview -- RoQA; obsolete, low popcon > #1085454 > RM: fuse-umfuse-ext2 -- RoQA; dead upstream, low popcon > #1085457 > + replace with https://github.com/alperakcan/fuse-ext2 > RM: umview-mod-umfusefat [amd64 i386 ppc64] -- RoQA; view-os removed ITS > #1085458 (2024-11-09); https://github.com/virtualsquare/fusefatfs/pull/2 > RM: fuse-umfuse-iso9660 -- RoQA; dead upstream, duplicates fuseiso > #1085456 > + implement "fuseiso -o fuseopt -o fuseopt iso mtpt" in fuseiso > #1083034 > (currently only accepts "fuseiso iso mtpt -o fuseopt -o fuseopt") > have that provide a transitional package (sge@ > contacted thus) > ‒ fuseext2 is to be provided by https://github.com/alperakcan/fuse-ext2 > instead of src:fuse-umfuse-ext2. > > The current version of src:fuse-umfuse-ext2 in sid is 0.4-1.5, > and the current version of https://github.com/alperakcan/fuse-ext2 is 0.0.11, > so src:fuse-ext2 would need to be version 1:0.0.11-1 to update right. > > Thoughts?
Given that fuse-ext2's README says "please do not mount your
filesystems with write support unless you have nothing to lose", is it
really suitable to replace the current implementation?
Perhaps it would be better not to provide any replacement until fuse-
ext2 is more mature - at which point its version may have increased
such that an epoch is not necessary.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Usenet is essentially a HUGE group of people passing notes in class.
- Rachel Kadel, `A Quick Guide to Newsgroup Etiquette'
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
