massive report for uninstallable FUSE packages
 

Hi!

There are 23 packages in unstable which can't be installed on Debian
GNU/kFreeBSD because of their unconditional dependency on fuse-utils.
On this platform, fuse4bsd should be used instead.

I indent to file one bug report for each of them:

wikipediafs sshfs smbnetfs s3ql rofs python-fuse pytagsfs plptools
mythtvfs ntfsprogs libpam-mount libfuse-perl libconfig-model-perl
httpfs2 gphotofs gfarm2fs fusedav fts flickrfs curlftpfs bindfs avfs
aptfs

using the following template:

<template>
Package: %package%
Severity: important
User: debian-bsd@lists.debian.org
Usertags: kfreebsd

Hi

This package is not installable on kfreebsd-i386 or kfreebsd-amd64 because it
depends unconditionally on fuse-utils. Please considering adjusting the
dependency from:

Depends: fuse-utils

to:

Depends: fuse-utils [linux-any] | fuse4bsd [kfreebsd-any]

If it requires fuse-utils specifically because of the command-line functionality
in that package (and not just to obtain a FUSE daemon), please reply to this
bug report so we can try to find a solution.

Thanks!
</template>

Please let me know of any suggestions or concerns you may have.
Please keep debian-bsd on CC, I'm not subscribed to debian-devel.

--
Robert Millan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CAOfDtXN4aXqOHEohqXSwBuSokOCnOtOTQsCDMZASp9gJfU__i A@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CAOfDtXN4aXqOHEohqXSwBuSokOCnOtOTQsCDMZASp9gJfU__i A@mail.gmail.com

massive report for uninstallable FUSE packages
 

Is it the job for fuse4bsd maintainers to set Provide: fuse-utils ?

--
YunQiang Su


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CAKcpw6U8rJ-9mqn1T9r-+1znHRbUO91Tssj6Y9ENoVtUsoGTKw@mail.gmail.com">htt p://lists.debian.org/CAKcpw6U8rJ-9mqn1T9r-+1znHRbUO91Tssj6Y9ENoVtUsoGTKw@mail.gmail.com

massive report for uninstallable FUSE packages
 

2011/7/16 YunQiang Su <wzssyqa@gmail.com>:
> Is it the job for fuse4bsd maintainers to set Provide: fuse-utils ?

fuse4bsd shouldn't provide fuse-utils because it's not completely
equivalent to this package. There are two important differences:

- A package may require fuse-utils because it relies specifically on
the semantics of fusermount.

- A package may have a versioned dependency, in which case an
alternate dependency is still needed.

--
Robert Millan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CAOfDtXOxvJKcmnCuaYL562nZVqL9sSWSEkjMhZZzg8Hj5TEct w@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CAOfDtXOxvJKcmnCuaYL562nZVqL9sSWSEkjMhZZzg8Hj5TEct w@mail.gmail.com

massive report for uninstallable FUSE packages
 

On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 04:10:18PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> Hi!
>
> There are 23 packages in unstable which can't be installed on Debian
> GNU/kFreeBSD because of their unconditional dependency on fuse-utils.
> On this platform, fuse4bsd should be used instead.
>
> I indent to file one bug report for each of them:
>
> wikipediafs sshfs smbnetfs s3ql rofs python-fuse pytagsfs plptools
> mythtvfs ntfsprogs libpam-mount libfuse-perl libconfig-model-perl
> httpfs2 gphotofs gfarm2fs fusedav fts flickrfs curlftpfs bindfs avfs
> aptfs
>
> using the following template:
>
> <template>
> Package: %package%
> Severity: important
> User: debian-bsd@lists.debian.org
> Usertags: kfreebsd
>
> Hi
>
> This package is not installable on kfreebsd-i386 or kfreebsd-amd64 because it
> depends unconditionally on fuse-utils. Please considering adjusting the
> dependency from:
>
> Depends: fuse-utils
>
> to:
>
> Depends: fuse-utils [linux-any] | fuse4bsd [kfreebsd-any]
>
> If it requires fuse-utils specifically because of the command-line functionality
> in that package (and not just to obtain a FUSE daemon), please reply to this
> bug report so we can try to find a solution.

IIRC, that's actually a requirement of libfuse itself, not directly from the
packages using libfuse. So why shouldn't that be libfuse's job to depend
on these? For the very few rdeps that *don't* rely on the API that uses
them?

Mike


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110716144340.GA13967@glandium.org">http://lists.debian.org/20110716144340.GA13967@glandium.org

massive report for uninstallable FUSE packages
 

2011/7/16 Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 04:10:18PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> There are 23 packages in unstable which can't be installed on Debian
>> GNU/kFreeBSD because of their unconditional dependency on fuse-utils.
>> On this platform, fuse4bsd should be used instead.
>>
>> I indent to file one bug report for each of them:
>>
>> wikipediafs sshfs smbnetfs s3ql rofs python-fuse pytagsfs plptools
>> mythtvfs ntfsprogs libpam-mount libfuse-perl libconfig-model-perl
>> httpfs2 gphotofs gfarm2fs fusedav fts flickrfs curlftpfs bindfs avfs
>> aptfs
>>
>> using the following template:
>>
>> <template>
>> Package: %package%
>> Severity: important
>> User: debian-bsd@lists.debian.org
>> Usertags: kfreebsd
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> This package is not installable on kfreebsd-i386 or kfreebsd-amd64 because it
>> depends unconditionally on fuse-utils. *Please considering adjusting the
>> dependency from:
>>
>> * Depends: fuse-utils
>>
>> to:
>>
>> * Depends: fuse-utils [linux-any] | fuse4bsd [kfreebsd-any]
>>
>> If it requires fuse-utils specifically because of the command-line functionality
>> in that package (and not just to obtain a FUSE daemon), please reply to this
>> bug report so we can try to find a solution.
>
> IIRC, that's actually a requirement of libfuse itself, not directly from the
> packages using libfuse. So why shouldn't that be libfuse's job to depend
> on these? For the very few rdeps that *don't* rely on the API that uses
> them?

That would make sense to me, but libfuse2 only Suggests fuse-utils.

CCing the maintainer. Daniel, are all these dependencies gratuitous?
Should they be removed instead of adjusted to support fuse4bsd?

--
Robert Millan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CAOfDtXN=kH=7+j+gp+qXeRjPxny4fdtgqPdo3WuACoF_xdDod w@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CAOfDtXN=kH=7+j+gp+qXeRjPxny4fdtgqPdo3WuACoF_xdDod w@mail.gmail.com

massive report for uninstallable FUSE packages
 

On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 16:10:18 +0200, Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org> wrote:

> wikipediafs sshfs smbnetfs s3ql rofs python-fuse pytagsfs plptools
> mythtvfs ntfsprogs libpam-mount libfuse-perl libconfig-model-perl
> httpfs2 gphotofs gfarm2fs fusedav fts flickrfs curlftpfs bindfs avfs
> aptfs

I'm working on gphotofs, but shouldn't
>
> Depends: fuse-utils [linux-any] | fuse4bsd [kfreebsd-any]
>

this be something like

Depends: fuse [linux-any] | fuse4bsd [kfreebsd-any]

since fuse-utils is transitional.

I'm also not sure whether it is better to use '|' or just ',' here.
Probably it doesn't matter.

d

massive report for uninstallable FUSE packages
 

After receiving some feedback which allowed me to improve the
template, this is the message I intend to use for the bug reports:

Package: %package%
Severity: important
User: debian-bsd@lists.debian.org
Usertags: kfreebsd

Hi

This package is not installable on kfreebsd-i386 or kfreebsd-amd64 because it
depends unconditionally on fuse-utils.

If %package% depends on fuse-utils only to ensure that FUSE support is enabled,
please consider adjusting the dependency to something like:

Depends: fuse [linux-any] | fuse4bsd [kfreebsd-any]

(example uses "fuse" because fuse-utils is now a transitional package that
depends on fuse)

Else if %package% depends on fuse-utils because it works better when the
fusermount command is available, but this is not an essential requirement,
please consider lowering it to a recommendation, like:

Recommends: fuse

(example uses "fuse" because fuse-utils is now a transitional package that
depends on fuse)

Else if %package% depends on fuse-utils because it can't work at all without
fusermount, please reply to this bug report so we can try to find a solution.

Thanks!

--
Robert Millan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CAOfDtXOoxRhikif8kVMkingDJ6G4G7LqUDjO_sd1hx9agNrQM Q@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CAOfDtXOoxRhikif8kVMkingDJ6G4G7LqUDjO_sd1hx9agNrQM Q@mail.gmail.com

massive report for uninstallable FUSE packages
 

2011/7/16 Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org>:
> I would expect that every package that depends on fuse-utils probably
> requires command-line functionality (because fuse-utils really doesn't
> provide anything else), so I'm not convinced that automatically filing
> bugs here would be a good idea.

Good point. Then I think I'll just analize some of those packages
(when I think they're important enough to spend the time) and report
bugs only on a case-by-case basis.

--
Robert Millan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CAOfDtXOx=+uBkj6qSKfsEKR+jW4oEeH77qf6y74Ucs+OaEmb7 w@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CAOfDtXOx=+uBkj6qSKfsEKR+jW4oEeH77qf6y74Ucs+OaEmb7 w@mail.gmail.com

massive report for uninstallable FUSE packages
 

2011/7/16 Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org>:
> I would expect that every package that depends on fuse-utils probably
> requires command-line functionality (because fuse-utils really doesn't
> provide anything else), so I'm not convinced that automatically filing
> bugs here would be a good idea.

Uhm no, actually this is not the case. Take sshfs for example, its
dependency is a mixture of the first and second case in my template.
Or smbnetfs, which doesn't use fusermount for anything and is 100% the
first case. ntfsprogs is like ssh (fusermount is only mentioned in
the manpage), etc.

I think best way is to report this and let each maintainer decide what is best.

--
Robert Millan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CAOfDtXOgdLKLs1OOQdWkGVP6i9Vsr=wQ7Ub4EjA5m5n9=Mb=T g@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CAOfDtXOgdLKLs1OOQdWkGVP6i9Vsr=wQ7Ub4EjA5m5n9=Mb=T g@mail.gmail.com

massive report for uninstallable FUSE packages
 

On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:33:43PM -0300, David Bremner wrote:

> Depends: fuse [linux-any] | fuse4bsd [kfreebsd-any]
> [..]
> I'm also not sure whether it is better to use '|' or just ',' here.
> Probably it doesn't matter.

I haven't looked into the apt code but from a logical point of view
both ways ('|' or ',') are equivalent since the two filters [linux-any]
and [kfreebsd-any] are mutually exclusive. I would say that '|' fits the
intended meaning better since in any situation one only may have one of
the two dependencies, but that is probably a question of taste.

-Ralf.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110717134515.GA7244@free.fr">http://lists.debian.org/20110717134515.GA7244@free.fr