Re: More compatibility for refuse

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

manu%netbsd.org@localhost (Emmanuel Dreyfus) writes:

> <coypu%sdf.org@localhost> wrote:
>
>> I'm just going to commit code without code review if all the responses
>> are going to be "please don't work on X, work on Y instead".
>> I am interested in librefuse because that's what gets used.
>
> Sure, go ahead for the short term, but my point is that in the long run,
> your life could be easier by just linking FUSE filesystems with the real
> libfuse instead of librefuse. 

I am not following two things:

  Do you think that (for things that use the high-level API) it is
  better to use (upstream, via pkgsrc) libfuse and perfuse, instead of
  using librefuse?  If so, could you explain why?  It seems to me to add
  a layer of indirection and a daemon.

  It seems the underlying problem is that upstream libfuse is not good
  about compatibility, and thus filesystems that haven't update to the
  30 API are troubled.