Re: [ITP] FUSE 2.8

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

Hi,

Here is Liryna from Dokan-dev community, our project Dokany have the
same purpose of Bill project.
Like WinFSP, it is able to mount FUSE filesystem on cygwin before WinFSP exist.

I would like to point out that naming WinFSP package "fuse" is not the
right way to integrate WinFSP in cygwin.

The package is not related to fuse developers or community.
It would make the user believe that the package is an official fuse
project and I am not sure that’s what Nikratio from libfuse would
like.
The package should be renamed winfsp-fuse for give ability of cygwin
users to choose which solution they would like to use. Like
dokan-fuse, cbfs-fuse and other projects that offer the same
service...
All these packages would install their own libfuse for link
compatibility that use their own dependency.
Fuse name should be kept for official port by libfuse or by a future
integration directly compatible with windows kernels.
The official fuse window integration is an official request made by
devs on WPDEV. This request is well placed on the top so it is
probably only a question of time before windows do it in the same time
as the Linux subsystem integration.
https://wpdev.uservoice.com/forums/266908-command-prompt-console-bash-on-ubuntu-on-windo/suggestions/13522845-add-fuse-filesystem-in-userspace-support-in-wsl

I also would like to point out that WinFSP has absolutely no feedback
of any kind by users and has not been tested on all windows versions.
I think Kernel drivers should at least have some feedback and known as
used in production before choosing to be distributed as cygwin
package.
Unstable kernel drivers can create severity damage in case of BSOD
like windows or user file corruption.

These analyses are probably severe but for the good of cygwin users,
integrate kernel driver dependence should be well thought before
making the step.

Thanks,
Liryna

2016-07-22 9:59 GMT+02:00 Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com>:
> On Jul 21 22:11, Bill Zissimopoulos wrote:
>> On 7/20/16, 1:52 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>
>> >We just might still want to change the name to "no+body".
>> >
>> >What do others on this list think?  What sounds better?
>> >
>> > "nodomain+nobody" or "no+body"
>>
>> Corinna, hi.
>>
>> I know you have asked others to chime in, but IMO you should go ahead and
>> change it to “no+body”.
>
> Done.
>
>> I also would ask others to chime in regarding this package and
>> specifically if it is one they would like to see in Cygwin.
>>
>> I am also unclear on what the next steps are regarding this package
>> submission. Does the package need 5 votes in order to be accepted? Does it
>> only need 1 GTG vote because FUSE packages already exist on most major
>> Linux distros?
>
> A GTG should be ok here.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Corinna
>
> --
> Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
> Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
> Red Hat