Sorry for the late response ... Hmmm. Maybe the official package didn't include a kernel module - I can't remember. I think fuse only existed in AUR for a while, and maybe only recently got moved to extra? It's hard to remember how I had it set up. I guess I must have built it and installed it myself, rather than use the supplied package.
Still, I do find the current setup a bit puzzling. If Arch's current kernel is 2.6.13 (which doesn't include the fuse module), then I guess I'd expect that the fuse package should supply it. For those using 2.6.14, say, in testing, then maybe there could be another fuse package in testing that excludes the module. Any thoughts about making this change? Otherwise anyone using fuse with the current kernel really has to build it themself, and so the package isn't really of much use. Also, just wondering: since going foreward kernel 2.6.14 will now include the fuse module, and so this package won't, should the package maybe be renamed? Say, to "fuse-utils" or something? I guess having it be named fuse would imply to me that either a) it supplies the fuse module, or b) that there's an actual "fuse" application that this supplies. This is a pretty minor point of course, though. Thanks, DR > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Rosenstand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:37 PM > To: Rosenstrauch, David > Cc: General Discusson about Arch Linux > Subject: Re: [arch] problem with fuse upgrade > Actually the package never included a kernel module. I am not > using the > arch kernel myself (the kernel is the only piece of software I'd like > to handle without a package manager involved) so I just looked quickly > in our ViewCVS interface to check whether the arch kernel had the FUSE > module. Of course, as Aaron discovered, the default tag was testing. > Duh! > > If you've had it working before you must have either used a non-arch > kernel (maybe archck?) or the arch kernel from testing. I'm > afraid those > will be your options for 2.4.2 as well (I still consider fuse somewhat > a geek toy and since 2.6.14 could be heading into current pretty much > every minute now, ressources are probably better spend elsewhere - I > bet you agree :-)). Should you decide to compile a kernel yourself, > then any >=2.6.14-rc1 should do. > > Sorry for any inconvenience this might have caused. > BTW: wouldn't this be way cool, or is it just another sick > idea of mine? > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=13958121 ============================================================================== Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.csfb.com/legal_terms/disclaimer_external_email.shtml ============================================================================== _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
