Efraim Flashner wrote:
I looked into bumping it a while ago and I ended up down a
rabbit hole I
didn't really want to venture into. Don't really remember much
beyond
that unfortunately.
Hah, me too! Probably a longer while ago.
I wonder how many other people-hours have vanished down this ex
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 09:31:20PM -0500, Brett Gilio wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> With 1.0 around the corner, is there any priority for packages like
> fuse? The latest release is 3.5 and we are using 2.9.
>
> All of these packages depend on it
> casync@2 multipath-tools@0.7.9 fio@3.13 python-llfuse@0.4
Hi all,
With 1.0 around the corner, is there any priority for packages like
fuse? The latest release is 3.5 and we are using 2.9.
All of these packages depend on it
casync@2 multipath-tools@0.7.9 fio@3.13 python-llfuse@0.41.1
python-fusepy@2.0.4 python2-gdrivefs@0.14.9 python2-llfuse@1.3.5
borg@1
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 12:41:59PM +0100, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> I have no objections to renaming the package, though you’ll need to keep
> a definition for “sshfs-fuse” to indicate to users that the package has
> been renamed.
Right. See the definition of 'letsencrypt' in (gnu packages tls) for
Hi,
I have no objections to renaming the package, though you’ll need to keep
a definition for “sshfs-fuse” to indicate to users that the package has
been renamed.
--
Ricardo
Hello,
swedebugia writes:
> Reasons:
> * shorter is better.
Not always, e.g. as you see we have a policy to prefix package names
like font-dejavu and emacs-guix, but I don't see this in ‘fuse’ case:
--8<---cut here---start->8---
$ guix package -A fuse | awk '
Reasons:
* shorter is better.
* the project it self names it sshfs.
* there are no other sshfs implementations to my knowledge
--
Cheers Swedebugia
