how to change encfs installation script to skip macfuse

[Ryan Schmidt]

That's a good idea, to start with anyway. (Later, if 2.1.x is deemed to work well enough, and the original developer shows no signs of updating the "official" version, we could decide to use 2.1.x in the regular macfuse port anyway.)

My own research on the topic suggests that 2.1.9 is currently an ok version, including 64-bit kernel support, but it seemed that there were several different versions built by different people, but that Tuxera seemed to be taking the lead with macfuse development these days. I have not yet tried it myself; though I greatly want 64-bit kernel support, I also greatly want not to cause kernel panics, which is what some earlier versions would cause.


On Mar 15, 2011, at 14:18, Bayard Bell wrote:

> I'm not sure what the general rules are with this, but I've noticed that <port>-devel allows people who are so inclined to get closer to the bleeding edge, presumably forewarned that what they are running is of a markedly different status. Let people work with the -devel branch and decide from there when the 2.1 branch is sufficiently stable to replace 2.0 in the standard port.
> 
> On 15 Mar 2011, at 19:12, Dan Ports wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 08:52:45AM -0600, Frank Schima wrote:
>>> The official Macfuse site says 2.0.3,2 is the latest version [1]. Where are you seeing 2.1.7?
>> 
>> My understanding is that MacFUSE has effectively been abandoned by its
>> author, and 2.0.3,2 is the latest released version (so, not
>> surprisingly, it's the one available in the port)
>> 
>> There's been some work in the community about creating a newer version,
>> and in particular on getting 64-bit kernel support. Ticket #26115 has
>> some links to relevant threads. As far as I know all of this is pretty
>> experimental.
>> 
>> As the macfuse port's maintainer, I'm not entirely opposed to updating
>> the port to an "unofficial" version if there's not going to be another
>> "official" release. (Though the thought does make me uneasy -- is there
>> any precedent for doing that?) But I certainly don't want to update to
>> a version that's also unstable.
>> 
>> Dan