From: Miklos S. <mi...@sz...> - 2007-11-26 13:40:32
|
> > Please don't misunderstand me. I'd like fuse to support uclibc out of > > the box, but that doesn't mean I have a formal commitment, or that I'm > > willing to spend lots of time on chasing down bugs in the uclibc > > setup. > > You maintain a critical usermode interface, many of your users > use/require it in initrd/embedded environments. If you don't have > formal commitment for this setup a large group of users will continue > to use fuse incorrectly or drop the idea. > > You are not expected to chase down bugs in uclibc, but do expected to > understand that every neat new feature you evaluate in binutils may be > incompatible. Hence reverting to some old fashion standard. > > Also you do expected to test a release in uclibc/klibc environment. To the best of my knowledge you are not my boss, so telling me what to do and what not to do is not guaranteed to get you any results. > But if these configurations are unsupported, please state so clearly > on your site and documentation. So users will not try to go against > you... Maybe fuse-lite project will emerge and ntfs-3g will migrate to > this one to keep up with its userbase. You say this as if that would be a bad thing. I think a fuse-lite project would be a _great_ thing, honestly. Thanks, Miklos |