On 2019-09-11 03:40, Khem Raj wrote: > Hi Armin > > On 9/10/19 3:06 PM, akuster808 wrote: >> Stefan, >> >> On 9/10/19 2:49 PM, Stefan Agner wrote: >>> From: Stefan Agner <stefan.ag...@toradex.com> >>> >>> Add recipe for libfuse version 3 series. Follow the scheme other >>> distributions use and create a new recipe with 3 in its name. >>> To avoid conflict with the fuse (2) recipe this recipe does not >>> provide init scripts/configuration files which automatically load >>> the fuse kernel driver. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Agner <stefan.ag...@toradex.com> >> >> This recipe appears to already exist in meta-filesystem >> >> https://git.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded/tree/meta-filesystems/recipes-support/fuse/fuse_2.9.9.bb >> >> Is this a all together a different Major version that is not compatible >> with the one above? or should we just update the old one? >> > > These are different revisions which can be installed together see [1] > I think best solution is as proposed where both revisions can live > together, we don't want to force fuse2 users to fuse3 since it could > mean quite a bit of unplanned work. Eventually we might drop fuse2 > maybe in 3.1+ releases if all users of fuse in OE have moved over to > fuse3
Yes, fuse3 seems to be a non backward compatible release. Lots of project still require fuse2. E.g. in ArchLinux you can see that actually most packages still depend on fuse2: https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/fuse2/ https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/fuse3/ Given that so many projects still rely on fuse2, I guess dropping fuse2 will be even further out. -- Stefan > > [1] > https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse/blob/master/ChangeLog.rst#libfuse-300-2016-12-08 -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel