On May 17, 2021, at 21:00, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > On 5/17/21 19:06, Ryan Schmidt wrote >>>> Meh. They have different priorities than we do. No reason for us to follow >>>> what they do. >>> In this instance, though, I think their reasoning is correct. >> So you would like MacPorts to delete all ports that depend on osxfuse, and >> all ports that depend on those ports, and so on? >> >> Each of those ports was added to MacPorts because someone wanted it. What >> are they to do once we delete them? > > The FUSE implementation itself already has a binary installer (and indeed, we > cannot build it from source since there are none), and so if one wants it, > it's easy to install without our infrastructure.
As I said there are many ports in MacPorts that depend on fuse. Thus, we must offer fuse as a port in MacPorts if we want to continue to have those ports. MacPorts ports are not, as a rule, supposed to require the user to install other things outside of MacPorts. > I've suggested elsewhere that it's a good idea to probably take the last open > source version of FUSE for MacOS and figure out how to get it to work without > needing a kernel extension given that those are on the way out. If someone is interested in forking osxfuse/macfuse or any other software to improve it in a different direction from the original developer, that's their prerogative.
