https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725292
Jorge A Gallegos <k...@blegh.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|needinfo? |
--- Comment #18 from Jorge A Gallegos <k...@blegh.net> ---
Yes, I pinged them about this in the same google code ticket I had opened a
while ago: http://code.google.com/p/s3fs/issues/detail?id=211 about my intent
to package under a different package/binary name. However I am not clear on a
couple of things:
(Neil is already CCed in this bug, so perhaps he can respond?)
1) the fuse-s3fs package provides the /usr/bin/s3fs binary and this review
package also provides the same binary. Renaming this package's binary to
/usr/bin/fuse-s3fs would only complicate matters more, i.e. fuse-s3fs.rpm
provides /usr/bin/s3fs and s3fs.rpm would provide /usr/bin/fuse-s3fs.
2) not entirely sure what the behavior would be when having both packages
installed and trying to use the /etc/fstab entries. As far as I can see both
packages register an s3fs fuse driver...
Thoughts?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
