MacFUSE portfile

Juan Manuel Palacios jmpp at
Wed Jan 31 04:16:01 PST 2007

	Hey Kevin! Seeing we could easily grow the fuse category with a rather 
similar template for every port in it other than the two base fusefs 
and libfuse ports, or so I think, this would seem like great candidate 
for a new PortGroup code a la perl PortGroup, ruby, aqua, etc...

	Do I have enough drag to encourage you to write the base code for the 
group? It shouldn't be too hard for you to take a look into the 
existing groups in base/src/port1.0/resources/group/ and figuring out 
the requirements and syntax ;-) Once written, the sshfs port could be 
rewritten as an initial test against the group before other ports 
leverage it... up for inclusion in 1.4 if time & testing permits, woot!

	But other than that, MacFUSE PortGroup or not, kudos to you for 
bringing this into our repo, I'm sure many will have lots of thanking 
words for you, here are mine!



On Jan 31, 2007, at 2:02 AM, Kevin Ballard wrote:

> r21623 is a seemingly innocuous commit, but it provides MacFUSE 
> support. Hooray!
> Go read the commit message on that thing if you want the details. It's 
> a real monster of a message, and provides all the juicy details you 
> want.
> If you want to add more filesystems, take a gander at the sshfs port. 
> It should provide the template you need. If you have any questions, 
> just ask me.
> Probably tomorrow I will take a look at adding some of the more 
> popular ones, starting with ntfs-3g. That said, I'm actually pretty 
> unsure as to what filesystems are popular outside of sshfs and 
> ntfs-3g, so if you have any suggestions, send an email my way.
> Word of warning: if you have fusefs installed, and you've mounted a 
> FUSE filesystem at least once during this power-on session, 
> uninstalling will leave the kext loaded into kernelspace. This is not, 
> strictly speaking, *dangerous*, but it might cause some confusion if 
> you proceed to then install a different version (confusion being the 
> old one is still loaded, so the new one won't be). The simple solution 
> is to reboot, the complicated solution is to make sure no FUSE 
> filesystems are mounted and run `sudo kextunload -b 
> When MacFUSE puts out another release and I update the portfile. I'll 
> probably stick a message in there somewhere instructing people to 
> reboot if they're upgrading their fusefs installation. Ideally this 
> would actually go into a post-deactivate phase, but since such a phase 
> doesn't actually exist at the moment, the best place is probably a 
> post-activate. Theoretically it could even query to see if the kext is 
> loaded in pre-activate, and spit out the message in post-activate 
> telling the user that they have to reboot. If you have any thoughts on 
> this matter, well, you know what to do ;)
> -- 
> Kevin Ballard
> eridius at
> _______________________________________________
> macports-dev mailing list
> macports-dev at

More information about the macports-dev mailing list