m...@netbsd.org (Emmanuel Dreyfus) writes: > <co...@sdf.org> wrote: > >> I'm just going to commit code without code review if all the responses >> are going to be "please don't work on X, work on Y instead". >> I am interested in librefuse because that's what gets used. > > Sure, go ahead for the short term, but my point is that in the long run, > your life could be easier by just linking FUSE filesystems with the real > libfuse instead of librefuse.
I am not following two things: Do you think that (for things that use the high-level API) it is better to use (upstream, via pkgsrc) libfuse and perfuse, instead of using librefuse? If so, could you explain why? It seems to me to add a layer of indirection and a daemon. It seems the underlying problem is that upstream libfuse is not good about compatibility, and thus filesystems that haven't update to the 30 API are troubled.
