[arch-dev-public] [signoff] fuse 2.7.4-1
Hi devs, In testing for both architectures. Please signoff. Ronald
On Sun, 2008-10-19 at 16:23 +0200, Ronald van Haren wrote:
Hi devs,
In testing for both architectures. Please signoff.
Why is this package still in core? Nothing in core depends on it and it's not a critical base package.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
On Sun, 2008-10-19 at 16:23 +0200, Ronald van Haren wrote:
Hi devs,
In testing for both architectures. Please signoff.
Why is this package still in core? Nothing in core depends on it and it's not a critical base package.
Is it in the [core] repository, but not in the base group? If so, I think it has reason to be there- it can easily be viewed as a core component of a system install. Pushing everything down to extra doesn't really solve any identified problem. Cleaning out the base group is reasonable. -Dan
On Sun, 2008-10-19 at 10:26 -0500, Dan McGee wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
On Sun, 2008-10-19 at 16:23 +0200, Ronald van Haren wrote:
Hi devs,
In testing for both architectures. Please signoff.
Why is this package still in core? Nothing in core depends on it and it's not a critical base package.
Is it in the [core] repository, but not in the base group? If so, I think it has reason to be there- it can easily be viewed as a core component of a system install.
Pushing everything down to extra doesn't really solve any identified problem. Cleaning out the base group is reasonable.
-Dan
the reason it was there was because ntfs-3g was in core, which depends on fuse. ntfs-3g has been moved to extra a few days ago.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
On Sun, 2008-10-19 at 16:23 +0200, Ronald van Haren wrote:
Hi devs,
In testing for both architectures. Please signoff.
Why is this package still in core? Nothing in core depends on it and it's not a critical base package.
Is it in the [core] repository, but not in the base group? If so, I think it has reason to be there- it can easily be viewed as a core component of a system install.
Pushing everything down to extra doesn't really solve any identified problem. Cleaning out the base group is reasonable.
-Dan
Yes it is in the core repository but not it the base group. As I see it the package makes sence in either the core or the extra repo. Core because it is an underlying lib of quite a few things which could possibly break those (although the packages that depend on fuse are not really mission critical). Extra because of what Jan said. If more people think it should really go to extra I'm happy to move it. Opinions? Ronald
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 1:52 AM, Ronald van Haren <pressh@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
On Sun, 2008-10-19 at 16:23 +0200, Ronald van Haren wrote:
Hi devs,
In testing for both architectures. Please signoff.
Why is this package still in core? Nothing in core depends on it and it's not a critical base package.
Is it in the [core] repository, but not in the base group? If so, I think it has reason to be there- it can easily be viewed as a core component of a system install.
Pushing everything down to extra doesn't really solve any identified problem. Cleaning out the base group is reasonable.
-Dan
Yes it is in the core repository but not it the base group.
As I see it the package makes sence in either the core or the extra repo. Core because it is an underlying lib of quite a few things which could possibly break those (although the packages that depend on fuse are not really mission critical). Extra because of what Jan said.
If more people think it should really go to extra I'm happy to move it. Opinions?
Hmmm... personally, it seems more like it belongs in extra, conceptually, but it is a kernel module which also seems to point to core. I'm neutral on it, so I say we do a little informal vote on this. Should fuse stay in core? Y/N
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 12:10 -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
Hmmm... personally, it seems more like it belongs in extra, conceptually, but it is a kernel module which also seems to point to core. I'm neutral on it, so I say we do a little informal vote on this.
Should fuse stay in core? Y/N
I'll leave it up to the maintainer. Advantage of having fuse in extra is that future versions don't require signoffs ;) Signoff for both architectures anyways.
2008/10/21 Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net>:
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 12:10 -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
Hmmm... personally, it seems more like it belongs in extra, conceptually, but it is a kernel module which also seems to point to core. I'm neutral on it, so I say we do a little informal vote on this.
Should fuse stay in core? Y/N
I'll leave it up to the maintainer. Advantage of having fuse in extra is that future versions don't require signoffs ;)
Signoff for both architectures anyways.
+1 for extra signoff for x86_64. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
2008/10/21 Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net>:
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 12:10 -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
Hmmm... personally, it seems more like it belongs in extra, conceptually, but it is a kernel module which also seems to point to core. I'm neutral on it, so I say we do a little informal vote on this.
Should fuse stay in core? Y/N
I'll leave it up to the maintainer. Advantage of having fuse in extra is that future versions don't require signoffs ;)
Signoff for both architectures anyways.
+1 for extra signoff for x86_64.
-- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
okay, extra it is -> moved Ronald
participants (5)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Dan McGee
-
Jan de Groot
-
Roman Kyrylych
-
Ronald van Haren