Szabolcs Szakacsits <szaka <at> ntfs-3g.org> writes: > Ntfs-3g has no static copy of any library. That's just a matter of terminology, what's sure is that your fuse-lite fork is there. > If you're interested then you may read the text starting at "The big > change this time is ..." at the below URL for the explanation why you're > misunderstanding the situation: > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.ntfs-3g.devel/392 Well, your arguments are pretty unconvincing, and apply to a lot of application-library relationships, still usually library users won't fork a library just for that, or when they do, Fedora won't ship their fork. Your worries about old FUSE versions being used are also unfounded when it comes to Fedora, as Fedora upgrades such packages regularly, often within days of the upstream release, and if it's useful to improve ntfs-3g, the upgrade is even more likely to get pushed quickly. So I think ntfs-3g should really be built against the external FUSE in Fedora, as by our guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-17396a3b06ec849a7c0c6fc3243673b17e5fed90 Normally, if libraries need patches to make dependent packages to work well, we just apply the patches to the library rather than shipping a fork. Spot (Tom Callaway), if you're reading this, can you elaborate on the decision of defaulting to internal fuse-lite in the Fedora ntfs-3g package? To me, this decision appears to contradict your own guidelines. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
