Re: [ITP] FUSE 2.8

[Adrien JUND <liryna.stark@gmail.com>]

>You could define a package "fuse" with no contents and a dependency on
>package "winfsp-fuse".  Then later when/if another FUSE implementation
>becomes available, "somebody" could replace the "fuse" package with
>whatever is required to get alternatives support for the variants.
I have not officially open request now but right after we found a
solution to handle fuse wrapper packages,
I will apply for dokan as well as winfsp.

Also, I think that packages binary dependent to a fuse wrapper would not work
if it is another wrapper that is installed.
So shall we not just let the package dependent to fuse, explicit the
wrapper that he will use ?

2016-07-26 10:45 GMT+02:00 Herbert Stocker <hersto@gmx.de>:
> Hi all,
>
> On 7/26/2016 8:27 AM, Mark Geisert wrote:
>>
>> You could define a package "fuse" with no contents and a dependency on
>> package "winfsp-fuse".  Then later when/if another FUSE implementation
>> becomes available, "somebody" could replace the "fuse" package with
>> whatever is required to get alternatives support for the variants.
>
>
> Does setup.exe already have a provision in the GUI to ask the user
> which one they want to chose if two or more packages are able to
> provide the (empty) fuse package?
>
>> I'm wondering if "fuse-xxxx" is a better name template than "xxxx-fuse" in
>> order to keep the variants near each other in setup.exe's displays.
>
>
> good point.
>
>
> Herbert Stocker