Unison (was: Re: Milmeister Mass-Orphaning Request)

Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com
Sat Nov 20 07:43:53 UTC 2010

On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 07:19 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:14:22PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 19:00 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:29:09PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > > > >>>>> "RWMJ" == Richard W M Jones <rjones at redhat.com> writes:
> > > > 
> > > > RWMJ> I will take ocaml* and unison*.
> > > > 
> > > > I have orphaned them; feel free to take ownership.
> > > 
> > > Done, thanks.
> > 
> > what do you plan to do with unison, and its incompatibility quirkiness?
> > (I just ask because at present I have to use a private build because
> > Mandriva moved on to a newer stable release, so I have to run that on my
> > Fedora systems to remain interoperable).
> Yes, it's a big mess.  I don't think maintaining separate *packages*
> for each version / protocol level is in any way scalable.  Can we fold
> all the versions into a single package, if necessary carrying and
> building several source tarballs?

off the top of my head I think we *could*, but it's not necessarily a
lot cleaner; they'd all have to have different executable names, for one
thing. but yeah, I don't think there's any reason we can't do this, just
carry multiple tarballs and expand and build them one at a time in the

I think the previous maintainer planned to just maintain two or possibly
max three versions at a time, and obsolete older ones...but that still
requires a new package review for each new incompatible version.
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org

More information about the devel mailing list