Re: Propose to link fuse-encfs against pkg libperfuse [Was Re: mmap errors related to using encfs]

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

Mayuresh <mayuresh%acm.org@localhost> writes:

> 1. in mk/fuse.buildlink3.mk we should include
> filesystems/fuse/buildlink3.mk for NetBSD as well. Alternatively provide a
> choice to do so.
>
> [I have changed the code in an ad hoc manner right now. If the proposal is
> ok I'll try to do it neater and submit a patch. But I am not so conversant
> with changing mk/ files, do's and dont's of doing so etc.]

Opinions differ about whether libfuse/perfuse and librefuse should be
the standard approach.  For a very long time, librefuse has been the
standard approach.  So obviously just changing to use libfuse is out of
the question.

Adding some kind of preference variable so that people who wish to have
all packages that need the FUSE high-level API use libfuse/perfuse
instead (leaving the default) seems fine; that's similar to how we let
alternative implementations of other things be selected.

> 2. Two of the patches in fuse-encfs (1 added last week and 1 older) seem
> to be no more required if we link with filesystems/fuse:
> patch-encfs_FileUtils.cpp  patch-encfs_main.cpp
>
> Not sure about the third one: patches/patch-encfs_DirNode.cpp. (Will
> test without it and confirm.)

These patches should perhaps be addressed upstream, and perhaps
librefuse should be updated to be consistent with upstream FUSE.
That's going to take some careful reading of code and specs and patches.