From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Efraim Flashner Subject: Re: fuse & sshfs Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2019 21:57:42 +0300 Message-ID: <20190428185742.GA3104@macbook41> References: <87imv0p4av.fsf@posteo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wac7ysb48OaltWcw" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:50475) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hKp0E-0007kZ-Fe for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Apr 2019 14:58:19 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hKp07-00086Z-NY for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Apr 2019 14:58:17 -0400 Received: from flashner.co.il ([178.62.234.194]:38842) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hKp02-0007zH-1C for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Apr 2019 14:58:07 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87imv0p4av.fsf@posteo.net> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Brett Gilio Cc: Guix-devel --wac7ysb48OaltWcw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 09:31:20PM -0500, Brett Gilio wrote: > Hi all, >=20 > With 1.0 around the corner, is there any priority for packages like > fuse? The latest release is 3.5 and we are using 2.9. >=20 > All of these packages depend on it > casync@2 multipath-tools@0.7.9 fio@3.13 python-llfuse@0.41.1 > python-fusepy@2.0.4 python2-gdrivefs@0.14.9 python2-llfuse@1.3.5 > borg@1.1.9 skopeo@0.1.28 flatpak@1.2.4 unionfs-fuse@2.0 fuseiso@20070708 > fuse-exfat@1.3.0 archivemount@0.8.12 sshfs@2.10 testdisk@7.0 ifuse@1.1.3 > spacefm@1.0.6 caja-extensions@1.22.0 mate@1.22.0 lxde@0.99.2 > gnome-tweak-tool@3.26.4 gnome@3.24.3 httpfs2@0.1.5 curlftpfs@0.9.2 > disorderfs@0.5.6 apfs-fuse@0.0.0-0.c7036a3 encfs@1.9.5 sra-tools@2.9.3 > wimlib@1.13.0 >=20 > Is it maybe lingering in one of our unmerged branches out there? If not, > I wouldn't mind trying to take a crack at bumping it. I know for a fact > that not updating it limits out ability to upgrade sshfs since it > depends on version >3. >=20 > Best >=20 > Brett Gilio >=20 I looked into bumping it a while ago and I ended up down a rabbit hole I didn't really want to venture into. Don't really remember much beyond that unfortunately. I looked into bumping it a while ago and I ended up down a rabbit hole I didn't really want to venture into. Don't really remember much beyond that unfortunately. --=20 Efraim Flashner =D7=90=D7=A4=D7=A8=D7=99=D7=9D = =D7=A4=D7=9C=D7=A9=D7=A0=D7=A8 GPG key =3D A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted --wac7ysb48OaltWcw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEoov0DD5VE3JmLRT3Qarn3Mo9g1EFAlzF96MACgkQQarn3Mo9 g1FxRRAAoIJAy7wE6MkApUMT1IRLs6/vE2hL5gkb0MCT07+Ji71fRdK64Te9N2Sk Vb2hHs3KTtBZVsDKyAl425diJu2/hmo4N50hRRXfFJx8PL586YTGTiI4D7UTbPJo KeWlsctyaegz9Wduf0oelbcgcfZQyBXHbI70tL5B+kzXCplBV8iC9mBJqH5iv6q7 v3ErMAkfbvasNt7vNAM0s6yerkyLRPeLDgvMLIoonf+Xyk6rTcxy3M43eJXd8krb yroYDZSD3ElGH+6mgr16zhkSbrL8LOQsj5jFAj0YkQLsy7+UUFu8uBQMfx81dksI 293qKocAqsAaE34xMb8teLATqScn03zjwNOCV9tkQfJhtX6MIGW8v3HegiMV2S1w m2Bb5UfYq6Sg6VfslkYeoSON05FshPN1DG3NJczPQE0cPImZiWDNg4B+3GAEnulq SQn7Hyfgaq8wOZmqWuQSjHnjpFdduk52pKMEDVasIs3ZS+f0lkQNh1ovp4EImBWY LJ83vre7hTTGo3zQPZfjOLyuO2qtB/ngGzllYocGzajvwSuliE5j8GhpW5SBySm+ 1ZM0zhnZMv7lwBQIMlg+3OxuGBL53Z32/OC/37+WCbK7NpFrIGYOeuxtNx0biivP dfM0r0yjN9BL3ssVa71rAfMaLrNJ3QfwfJmxexKjZ+FmznXDGow= =3Ctm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --wac7ysb48OaltWcw--