Re: [ITP] cygfuse -- cygport issues solved

2022-03-27 Thread Mark Geisert
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

Re: [ITP] cygfuse

2022-03-25 Thread Mark Geisert
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

Re: [ITP] cygfuse

2022-03-12 Thread Jon Turney
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

Re: [ITP] cygfuse

2022-03-12 Thread Jon Turney
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

Re: [ITP] cygfuse

2022-03-10 Thread Marco Atzeri
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] cygfuse

2022-03-09 Thread Mark Geisert
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

Re: cygfuse (was Re: [ITP] FUSE 2.8)

2016-09-21 Thread Adrien JUND
> > >>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

Re: cygfuse

2016-09-21 Thread Bill Zissimopoulos
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

Re: cygfuse

2016-09-20 Thread Mark Geisert
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

Re: cygfuse (was Re: [ITP] FUSE 2.8)

2016-09-20 Thread Bill Zissimopoulos
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

cygfuse (was Re: [ITP] FUSE 2.8)

2016-09-08 Thread Mark Geisert
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