Hi, I searched for a fuse solution for ftp/gmail today and noticed that we have four fuse files systems with fuse- prefix in Fedora: $ yum list fuse-* [...] fuse-convmvfs.i386 0.2.3-2.fc7 fuse-encfs.i386 1.3.1-3.fc6 fuse-smb.i386 0.8.5-5.fc7 fuse-sshfs.i386 1.7-2.fc6 [...] And at least two without: $ yum list ntfs-3g curlftpfs [...] curlftpfs.i386 0.9-3.fc7 ntfs-3g.i386 2:1.0-1.fc7 [...] :-( Do we care about that mismatch? Should we rename the two latter in the long term just to be consistent? I tend to say "yes", so users that search like I did (yum list fuse-*) don't get taken into the wrong direction. Yes, it's just a small detail, but having some package with prefix and some without is IMHO just confusing.

On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 07:19:17PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > I searched for a fuse solution for ftp/gmail today and noticed that we > have four fuse files systems with fuse- prefix in Fedora: > > $ yum list fuse-* > [...] > fuse-convmvfs.i386 0.2.3-2.fc7 > fuse-encfs.i386 1.3.1-3.fc6 > fuse-smb.i386 0.8.5-5.fc7 > fuse-sshfs.i386 1.7-2.fc6 > [...] > > And at least two without: > > $ yum list ntfs-3g curlftpfs > [...] > curlftpfs.i386 0.9-3.fc7 > ntfs-3g.i386 2:1.0-1.fc7 > [...] > > :-( > > Do we care about that mismatch? Should we rename the two latter in the > long term just to be consistent? I tend to say "yes", so users that > search like I did (yum list fuse-*) don't get taken into the wrong > direction. > > Yes, it's just a small detail, but having some package with prefix and > some without is IMHO just confusing. Some time back there was the opposite request to remove the prefix, supposedly even uttered by upstream.

Personally I'd prefer it to keep the prefix. Imagine fuse-ext2 w/o the prefix :)