This is one reasonable compromise, given that a binary installer exists
from the (combative, not very reasonable) developer if one wants it. One
could then just leave the dependent ports and tell people to install the
binary themselves if they want it.
That said, I think it would be a boon to the community to have a version
of FUSE that would work for the long term going forward and which was
open source.
Perry
On 5/17/21 20:27, Mark Anderson wrote:
I agree with Perry, partly because the developer seems combative and I
worry what happens if he decides to stop working on it one day.
But I also don't want to remove all the ports - this kinda leads into
why I want cask like functionality, but then again, who would notice
if they just wanted to install ssh-fuse or something.
My other issue is we have two ports - which I think Ryan indicated is
kinda confusing/bad. That one seems easiest to fix.
—Mark
_______________________
Mark E. Anderson <m...@macports.org>
MacPorts Trac WikiPage <https://trac.macports.org/wiki/mark>
GitHub Profile <https://github.com/markemer>
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 7:06 PM Ryan Schmidt <ryandes...@macports.org>
wrote:
On May 17, 2021, at 08:44, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> On 5/17/21 01:44, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> On May 16, 2021, at 21:49, Mark Anderson wrote:
>>
>>> Given some of our recent back and forth, I found this
interesting: https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/pull/74812
>> Meh. They have different priorities than we do. No reason for
us to follow what they do.
>
> In this instance, though, I think their reasoning is correct.
So you would like MacPorts to delete all ports that depend on
osxfuse, and all ports that depend on those ports, and so on?
Each of those ports was added to MacPorts because someone wanted
it. What are they to do once we delete them?
