On 7/26/16, 12:02 PM, Mark Geisert wrote:
>If this turns out to be a workable solution, I am willing to be maintainer
>of the glue library Bill is offering.
I have created a new repository here:
https://github.com/billziss-gh/cygfuse
It contains the following:
- fuse.cygport
- cygfuse.c
On 7/26/16, 1:07 PM, Adrien JUND wrote:
>Excellent idea Bill !
>I am absolutely willing to do it !
>
>Dokan install folder can also be retrieved from the registry so it is
>a way to go with dlopen and dlsym mechanism.
Great. I am glad that this seems like it might work.
>Since I think all fuse
Excellent idea Bill !
I am absolutely willing to do it !
Dokan install folder can also be retrieved from the registry so it is
a way to go with dlopen and dlsym mechanism.
Since I think all fuse wrapper in this fuse project should propose the
same FUSE VERSION,
I will need some time for updating
On 7/26/16, 12:02 PM, Mark Geisert wrote:
>Bill Zissimopoulos writes:
>> BTW, here is another alternative that I have been mulling around.
>>
>[...]
>
>Very interesting. I'll need a little more time to investigate; github is
>throwing unicorns at the moment.
Yes, I noticed that. I think it is
Bill Zissimopoulos writes:
> BTW, here is another alternative that I have been mulling around.
>
[...]
Very interesting. I'll need a little more time to investigate; github is
throwing unicorns at the moment.
Could the Dokany folks consider whether this kind of wrapping might work
for them
On 7/25/16, 11:27 PM, Mark Geisert wrote:
>Bill Zissimopoulos writes:
>> - Rename the package to winfsp-fuse, but have it somehow “satisfy”
>> packages that require “fuse” (e.g. SSHFS, FUSEPY). This would allow
>> multiple *-fuse packages to exist in the setup database and the user
>> chooses
Adrien JUND writes:
> >You could define a package "fuse" with no contents and a dependency
on
> >package "winfsp-fuse". Then later when/if another FUSE
implementation
> >becomes available, "somebody" could replace the "fuse" package with
> >whatever is required to get alternatives support for
>You could define a package "fuse" with no contents and a dependency on
>package "winfsp-fuse". Then later when/if another FUSE implementation
>becomes available, "somebody" could replace the "fuse" package with
>whatever is required to get alternatives support for the variants.
I have not
Hi all,
On 7/26/2016 8:27 AM, Mark Geisert wrote:
You could define a package "fuse" with no contents and a dependency on
package "winfsp-fuse". Then later when/if another FUSE implementation
becomes available, "somebody" could replace the "fuse" package with
whatever is required to get
Bill Zissimopoulos writes:
> - Rename the package to winfsp-fuse, but have it somehow “satisfy”
> packages that require “fuse” (e.g. SSHFS, FUSEPY). This would allow
> multiple *-fuse packages to exist in the setup database and the user
> chooses which one they want. My understanding based on
10 matches
Mail list logo
