Dan Ports dports at
Wed Dec 28 16:14:53 PST 2011

On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 10:46:50AM +0000, Chris Jones wrote:
> 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. 

Yes, it would be nice to have a port for osxfuse as an option too. If I
had the time, I'd work on it, but I don't right now...

The main reason we've got a port for Fuse4X and not OSXFUSE isn't any
particular technical reason but that Fuse4X had a usable release first.
Fuse4X's author also did a lot of work to get it into MacPorts, both
with the portfiles and by integrating patches I sent him.

For those who haven't been following the state of the MacFUSE world,
I'd note that although MacFUSE hasn't been updated in years, the
forks only showed up about 6 months ago. Before that, things were
really a mess: various people had made unofficial releases of MacFUSE,
some of them seriously broken.

We added a port for fuse4x not too long after it was released. OSXFUSE
was released shortly thereafter. About 3 months ago, I switched the
fuse ports to use fuse4x instead of macfuse by default. Normally, I
probably would have waited longer to see how the fuse4x vs osxfuse
situation played out, but this was also around the time Lion was
released and that made 64-bit kernel support a lot more urgent.


Dan R. K. Ports              MIT CSAIL      

More information about the macports-dev mailing list