Chris Jones jonesc at
Wed Dec 28 02:46:50 PST 2011


Has anyone consider moving to osxfuse, instead of fuse4x ? It also was born out of the death of macfuse, but shares a lot of code with MacFuse but has been updated a lot to, for instance work with 64 bit kernels etc.

Perhaps the most relevant point is it has a macfuse compatibility layer, that makes it ABI compatible, so it can be used as a direct drop in replacement. i've been using it since macfuse died, and its very stable. Just a thought, but it seems to me a better replacement that fuse4x… fuse4x may have forked first, but I think most of the main people active on macfuse (including a lot of private forks, such as in tuzera ntfs etc.) moved to it and submitted patches when macfuse finally died.

cheers Chris

On 23 Dec 2011, at 12:17pm, Dan Ports wrote:

> Yes, I've been giving some thought lately to the question of whether
> we should remove this port.
> It is certainly deprecated: any ports that depend on it default to
> using fuse4x to satisfy the dependency instead. The macfuse port also
> refuses to install for anyone who's using a 64-bit kernel.
> One argument against removing the port is that fuse4x isn't ABI
> compatible with MacFUSE. That's hardly an issue for dependent ports, of
> course, but would break compatibility with non-MacPorts binaries that
> link against the framework. I'm told that's an issue for some MacFUSE
> users, although it's not clear how many of them are getting it from
> MacPorts (or if it's really something we want to support anyway.)
> Dan
> (who, incidentally, feels a certain kinship with "ports" systems. :-)
> -- 
> Dan R. K. Ports              MIT CSAIL      
> _______________________________________________
> macports-dev mailing list
> macports-dev at

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2966 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the macports-dev mailing list