https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=285101#c28
--- Comment #28 from Miklos Szeredi
* fuse2 - contains fusermount, mount.fuse, the rc script and docs I'd call the package just "fuse" or "fuse-utils".
Yes, didn't think that though. Indeed I think just "fuse" (or "fuse-utils, I'm not sure what is best)
Debian calls it "fuse-utils", but just "fuse" is equally fine I think. Since we already have a "fuse" package, I'd suggest sticking with this, which would be less confusing to users.
fuse or fuse-utils should be without version in the name because when fuse goes 3.x, an update upgrades the fuse or fuse-utils package to fuse-3.x and that works as fusermount of fuse-3.x will be compatible with libfuse2.
Right.
As to what they should require, I think that instead of requiring "fuse" or "fuse-tools", they may (in case we may change the name of the package or split furhter) also require specifically fusermount, either by requiring /usr/bin/fusermount as path, but as they do not need it in a specific path, they may also require just have "fusermount" and the whichever package provides fusermount would then have "Provides: fusermount", independent of it's name.
Again, I think this is wrong, because in the long term fusermount won't be needed, yet the fuse package with the init script to initialize the module and mount the control filesystem _will_ be needed. So just adding a dependency on "fuse" is the right thing IMO. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.