Mark Geisert wrote:
Hi Jon,
Thanks for the helpful review comments.
cygport is a wondrous tool. My issues were solved by making a simple tar.xz of my
local source tree, renaming it to have the version number expected by the cygport
script, placing that file and the cygport script in a test
Hi Jon,
Thanks for the helpful review comments. More below.
Jon Turney wrote:
On 10/03/2022 06:16, Mark Geisert wrote:
[...]> A few small comments on the cygport file
HOMEPAGE="https://github.com/mgeisert/cygfuse;
#SRC_URI="http://maxrnd.com/~mark/cygwin/x86_64/release/cygfuse
Space. I will shortly be providing an sshfs FUSE app, to be
covered by a separate ITP.
Importantly, cygfuse depends on an underlying Windows FUSE
implementation: WinFSP. In fact the Cygwin library code was provided
by the author of WinFSP. I'm just providing a bona-fide Cygwin
package
an sshfs FUSE app, to be covered by
a separate ITP.
Importantly, cygfuse depends on an underlying Windows FUSE
implementation: WinFSP. In fact the Cygwin library code was provided by
the author of WinFSP. I'm just providing a bona-fide Cygwin package for
the code.
WinFSP, and thus cygfuse
an sshfs FUSE app, to be covered by
a separate ITP.
Importantly, cygfuse depends on an underlying Windows FUSE
implementation: WinFSP. In fact the Cygwin library code was provided by
the author of WinFSP. I'm just providing a bona-fide Cygwin package for
the code.
WinFSP, and thus cygfuse
ITP.
Importantly, cygfuse depends on an underlying Windows FUSE implementation:
WinFSP. In fact the Cygwin library code was provided by the author of
WinFSP. I'm just providing a bona-fide Cygwin package for the code.
WinFSP, and thus cygfuse, is made available under GPLv3 for Free/Libre
>
>
>>I've changed Subject: to reflect what's being discussed now. When we
>>have a
>>consensus cygfuse I'll issue an ITP for it.
>>
>>I've now updated the cygfuse repository on GitHub so it is more neutral
>>about
>>FUSE implementations. It can be s
On 9/20/16, 10:33 PM, Mark Geisert wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Bill Zissimopoulos wrote:
>> Mark, has there been any additional progress on this?
>
>No activity. I was not expecting Dokany to be fully integrated before
>ITPing cygfuse, but I had hoped to hear at least that
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Bill Zissimopoulos wrote:
On 9/8/16, 1:03 AM, Mark Geisert wrote:
I've changed Subject: to reflect what's being discussed now. When we
have a
consensus cygfuse I'll issue an ITP for it.
I've now updated the cygfuse repository on GitHub so it is more neutral
about
FUSE
On 9/8/16, 1:03 AM, Mark Geisert wrote:
>I've changed Subject: to reflect what's being discussed now. When we
>have a
>consensus cygfuse I'll issue an ITP for it.
>
>I've now updated the cygfuse repository on GitHub so it is more neutral
>about
>FUSE implementations. It
Mark Geisert wrote:
[... some stuff ...]
I've changed Subject: to reflect what's being discussed now. When we have a
consensus cygfuse I'll issue an ITP for it.
I've now updated the cygfuse repository on GitHub so it is more neutral about
FUSE implementations. It can be seen at https
11 matches
Mail list logo