Fedora packaging: unison?

[Michael Cronenworth]

Adam Williamson wrote:
> Thanks, but afaics that thread doesn't really answer any of my
> questions, it's just a bunch of yum technicalities about how the
> implementation of having two packages actually works. What I'm
> interested in is what was the original reason for having two branches
> packaged, and do we still need to do it (or even have 3).

Jeff Splata's reply seemed to be enlightening, at least to me:

 > The unison developers..in their infinite wisdom have decided that they
 > don't actually want to worry about backwards compatibility between
 > client versions, so if you need to talk across the network to
 > different machines you need to be sure you have the same version of
 > unison available on both machines or the magic doesn't work.
 >
 > The horrible horrible package naming for unison that we have is a
 > result of that upstream decision to make sure people who want to use
 > unison can be sure they have the right versions of unison installed to
 > communicate to machines running other operating systems. The package
 > naming in the case of unison is done deliberately  to break how
 > version comparison in the package system is suppose to work.    It's a
 > corner case... that needs to die. Adding more logic at the packaging
 > layer to support what is really upstream's inability to provide
 > adequate protocol versioning support is wasted effort.