Fix build on FreeBSD

[kev009]

Include libltfs/ltfs_fuse_version.h and include fuse.h as a system header.

Summary of changes

This pull request includes following changes or fixes.

• Include libltfs/ltfs_fuse_version.h before fuse.h
• Since fuse.h is a system header, use brackets instead of quotes

Description

On at least FreeBSD we get a compile time failure with v2.4.8.x branch.

Type of change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)

Checklist:

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have confirmed my fix is effective or that my feature works

[kev009]

To the maintainers, it seems everything is being conducted out of the v2.4.8-windows-support branch which is a little confusing. Maybe merge that into master?

[piste-jp]

To the maintainers, it seems everything is being conducted out of the v2.4.8-windows-support branch which is a little confusing. Maybe merge that into master?

Hi @kev009, Sorry for confusing you.

First of all, the v2.4.8-windows-support branch is targeting windows build only for IBM at this time. It means only IBM can compile this with additional files on their internal branch. So please focus on the master and v2.4-stable for FreeBSD at this time.

This is little bit complicated. But I don't want to merge the v2.4.8-windows-support branch to the master branch as is.

Please refer below if you want to understand the history.

• Windows Annex K. Function Integration #531
• Windows support #520

Actually, the v2.4.8-windows-support branch never support windows at all. It means the code on the branch cannot be compiled successfully by the any visual studio edition because a few glue layer files are not provided. And also, personally I hate this kind of multi platform handling about annex K functions.

[kev009]

@piste-jp ok thanks, I don't have any opinion on how Windows should be done. I just noticed this problem in the last two tags, v2.4.8.0-10517 and v2.4.8.1-10519 which appear to be tagged from v2.4.8-windows-support. With the changes in this PR it builds again.

So maybe it is an accident that those were released from that branch? Or there is some parallel evolution planned?

[piste-jp]

I don't have any opinion on how Windows should be done. I just noticed this problem in the last two tags, v2.4.8.0-10517 and v2.4.8.1-10519 which appear to be tagged from v2.4.8-windows-support. With the changes in this PR it builds again.
So maybe it is an accident that those were released from that branch? Or there is some parallel evolution planned?

Oh, I believe it is bad move. But I have left IBM at 06/2024. So I don't manage anything about v2.4-stable branch and release.

Hmm, may be it's time to leave here and launch new LTFS project with supporting modern OS and better architecture....

[vandelvan]

@piste-jp ok thanks, I don't have any opinion on how Windows should be done. I just noticed this problem in the last two tags, v2.4.8.0-10517 and v2.4.8.1-10519 which appear to be tagged from v2.4.8-windows-support. With the changes in this PR it builds again.

So maybe it is an accident that those were released from that branch? Or there is some parallel evolution planned?

Hi @kev009

We are currently using v2.4.8-windows-support to incorporate the windows support changes, while we implement a solution that the community agrees with, but can support the most recent Windows platforms, we are currently looking how to integrate the missing files to the branch. Also, master was being used as a development branch for some reason, which is a bad practice. The main branch should always be stable. We still need to isolate those development changes to another branch and merge the changes from v2.4-stable.
Sorry for the confusion caused by this.

[kev009]

@vandelvan thanks, I am just approaching this as the FreeBSD ports maintainer. I do not have any specific opinion on how the project should function - but I would really appreciate any tagged releases continuing to build on all platforms. Can you integrate this PR into future releases from this branch?

[vandelvan]

@vandelvan thanks, I am just approaching this as the FreeBSD ports maintainer. I do not have any specific opinion on how the project should function - but I would really appreciate any tagged releases continuing to build on all platforms. Can you integrate this PR into future releases from this branch?

Sure! And thanks for the contribution!