On 11/26/07, Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please don't misunderstand me. I'd like fuse to support uclibc out of > the box, but that doesn't mean I have a formal commitment, or that I'm > willing to spend lots of time on chasing down bugs in the uclibc > setup.
You maintain a critical usermode interface, many of your users use/require it in initrd/embedded environments. If you don't have formal commitment for this setup a large group of users will continue to use fuse incorrectly or drop the idea. You are not expected to chase down bugs in uclibc, but do expected to understand that every neat new feature you evaluate in binutils may be incompatible. Hence reverting to some old fashion standard. Also you do expected to test a release in uclibc/klibc environment. But if these configurations are unsupported, please state so clearly on your site and documentation. So users will not try to go against you... Maybe fuse-lite project will emerge and ntfs-3g will migrate to this one to keep up with its userbase. Best Regards, Alon Bar-Lev. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ ntfs-3g-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ntfs-3g-devel
