On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 07:18:26PM +0000, Bayard Bell wrote: > I'm not sure what the general rules are with this, but I've noticed that > <port>-devel allows people who are so inclined to get closer to the bleeding > edge, presumably forewarned that what they are running is of a markedly > different status. Let people work with the -devel branch and decide from > there when the 2.1 branch is sufficiently stable to replace 2.0 in the > standard port.
Yes, that's an option. It's worth noting that there's also an official beta release of MacFUSE (v. 2.1.5). I'm not sure offhand what its benefits over 2.0 are. It doesn't have 64-bit kernel support, which seems to be what most people are (understandably!) looking for. We haven't done a -devel version of macfuse before, in part because I hadn't heard any demand for it, and in part because it wasn't clear what version that would be. Development has been (and still is, somewhat) fragmented, with a bunch of random unofficial releases appearing on forums. On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 03:16:30PM -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > That's a good idea, to start with anyway. (Later, if 2.1.x is deemed to work > well enough, and the original developer shows no signs of updating the > "official" version, we could decide to use 2.1.x in the regular macfuse port > anyway.) > > My own research on the topic suggests that 2.1.9 is currently an ok version, > including 64-bit kernel support, but it seemed that there were several > different versions built by different people, but that Tuxera seemed to be > taking the lead with macfuse development these days. I have not yet tried it > myself; though I greatly want 64-bit kernel support, I also greatly want not > to cause kernel panics, which is what some earlier versions would cause. Yes, there were a bunch of versions floating around for a while that purported to support 64-bit kernels. Many of them actually worked by disabling various thread-safety checks without actually being thread-safe, and thereby wound up causing frequent kernel panics. It looks like the Tuxera code is better in that respect, although I believe it uses fairly coarse-grained locking which can limit concurrency. Much of the problem here is that it's hard to keep track of these different releases, which are coming from different people, some of which work, some of which don't, and some of which are poorly documented. It would certainly be better for the MacFUSE community (such as it is) to straighten this out, rather than us... Dan -- Dan R. K. Ports MIT CSAIL http://drkp.net/ _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
