On 2025/11/23 18:10, Helg wrote:
> Hi ports@
> 
> I've reorganised the libfuse header files as a preperatory patch for
> supporting the low-level FUSE API:
> 
> It introduces the following new files.
> 
> - /usr/include/fuse/fuse_common.h
> - /usr/include/fuse/fuse_lowlevel.h
> - /usr/src/lib/libfuse/fuse_chan.c
> 
> Additionally, it relocates all libfuse header files to the
> /usr/include/fuse directory so that it now contains.
> 
> - /usr/include/fuse/fuse.h
> - /usr/include/fuse/fuse_opt.h
> - /usr/include/fuse/fuse_common.h
> - /usr/include/fuse/fuse_lowlevel.h
> 
> This change avoids FUSE header clutter in /usr/include and aligns with
> how Linux organises FUSE related headers.
> 
> Before I commit this patch to the source tree, I need to ensure that all
> FUSE filesystems in ports still compile. I've run the following to
> compile them all.
> 
> env SUBDIRLIST=/home/helg/fuse-ports.txt make FETCH_PACKAGES=
> 
> fuse-ports.txt contains:
> 
> archivers/fuse-zip
> devel/fossil
> security/encfs
> security/libbde
> security/libewf
> #security/veracrypt
> sysutils/curlftpfs
> sysutils/libfsapfs
> sysutils/libfsntfs
> sysutils/libfvde
> sysutils/libluksde
> sysutils/libolecf
> sysutils/libqcow
> sysutils/libregf
> sysutils/libsmraw
> sysutils/libvhdi
> sysutils/libvmdk
> sysutils/libvshadow
> sysutils/libvslvm
> sysutils/ntfs-3g
> sysutils/simple-mtpfs
> sysutils/sshfs-fuse
> sysutils/unionfs-fuse
> sysutils/usmb
> 
> All except 3 compiled without problems. The below is a diff for fossil
> and unionfs-fuse. veracrypt failed with a bunch of dependenciEs on my
> system via make and pkg_add. Maybe someone else can test this.
> 
> Fossil successfully knows to add -lfuse to LIBS as port of configure
> but doesn't also add -I/usr/include/fuse to CFLAGS. My understanding of
> autoconfig is not good enough to know why.
> 
> Either way, by using pkg-config everything should work before and after
> I commit my fuse headers patch.
> 
> ok?

ok

(as an aside: a bunch of the sysutils/lib* are just there to support
plaso/sleuthkit both of which are active upstream but have been mostly
ignored for ~5 years in ports, which is less than ideal for security
analysis tools, i would certainly be ok with removing them if they
get in the way of anything)

i'll take a look at veracrypt