Re: [RFC] New ports category "fs"

Hi Olivier,

Am Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 05:09:58PM +0100 schrieb Olivier Certner:
> Hi Robert,
> 
> I have a few remarks/questions.
> 
> The move implemented two different operations at once:
> 1. Grouping sysutils/fusefs-*, and removing the 'fusefs-' port prefix.
> 2. Grouping all filesystems-related ports.
> 
> Old sysutils/fusefs-* ports now do not have the 'fusefs-' prefix, but
> the packages produced from them still have.  Isn't that slightly confusing?
>
> That's maybe a non-existent case, but how would we handle a native
> driver vs. a FUSE implementation in ports, now that the latter are not
> prefixed?

The main purpose of the new category is to get rid of the sysutils/fusefs-
pseudo category.  The prefix stays for installed packages so the PKGNAME
doesn't change and binary package users do not get a surprise when they
try to update.

If for some reason there are multiple packages competing for the same name
within the filesystems category, a disambiguating prefix may be added as
usual.

> Is there a plan to tag the old sysutils/fusefs-* ports with, e.g.,
> some 'fusefs' virtual category?  That could come in handy when listing
> which FUSE filesystems are available (in particular with 'make search
> cat=fusefs'), even if there are other, though less user-friendly, ways
> to obtain this list.

Right now you can find these easily using "git grep '^USES=.*fuse', though
in principle a fusefs (or just fuse) virtual category might be nice.  Feel
free to propose such a category.  I wanted to keep it with just one new
category as to raise the chances of this patch passing review (still took
over a month).

Yours,
Robert Clausecker

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign - for an encoding-agnostic world
/\  - against html email  - against proprietary attachments