unison formal review
gregor at freenet.de
Mon Oct 3 17:22:28 UTC 2011
Am Mittwoch, 28. September 2011, 11:15:54 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 08:55:43AM +0200, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
> > On 09/27/2011 07:46 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/unison213
> > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/unison227
> > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/unison
> > >
> > > Instead of introducing yet another variation, can we somehow create a
> > > single 'unison' package which covers all of the protocol variants?
> > Why should I install all versions if I only want the recent one?
> > Or the xxx one, for compatibility.
> > Isn't there a general policy "split into many rpms, when possible"?
> > Having a single executable would be great (like rsync), but that
> > is an upstream issue.
> They don't all need to be in separately named packages. It's not
> beyond the realm of possibility for us to package up multiple versions
> of the source into one unison package.
> TBH I'd like to hear what FESCO have to say about this, because AFAIK
> there is no other package in the whole of Fedora which is packaged
> this way.
Any news from the FESCO team? What's the conclusion of this discussion?
Your nature demands love and your happiness depends on it.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20111003/149fb1f5/attachment.bin
More information about the devel