On Mon, 2008-05-26 at 17:13 -0400, Gene Czarcinski wrote: > My suggestion: Provide an additional binary package for the ntfsprogs > mount command (e.g., ntfsprogs-mount) which would have the mount > command and man-page. Installation of this "new" package should be > made to conflict with ntfs-3g so that both could not be installed at > the same time. For F10 (an probably F11) continue with the current > default installs ... that is, both ntfs-3g and ntfsprogs but not > ntfsprogs-mount. I disagree. Having two methods for ntfs mount seems like a recipe for failure. I looked at both of them, and determined that the ntfs-3g mount mechanism was far more robust and better maintained. I don't really think we benefit at all from enabling the ntfsprogs mount functionality. Or, to put it more succinctly, when we've had any problems with ntfs-3g mount, Szaka has been extremely helpful in working with us to resolve the issues. We've also had issues with the ntfsprogs suite, and received zero help or feedback on our patches. "Supporting" the ntfsprogs mount will simply lead to more bugs, and I've got enough of those as is. :) I'm hopeful that in time, the conflict/competition between ntfs-3g and ntfsprogs will all balance itself out. If we need to enable the ntfsprogs mount, it is only a minor amount of work, and could be done quickly. ~spot p.s. I'm hedging my bets on ntfs-3g. They show community and growth, where ntfsprogs doesn't. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
