unison formal review

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 11:32:18AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:22:28 +0200
> Gregor Tätzner <gregor at freenet.de> wrote:
> 
> > Any news from the FESCO team? What's the conclusion of this
> > discussion?
> 
> No one has officially asked fesco... 
> 
> Please file a ticket what you actually want to ask fesco here?
> 
> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/newtplticket

It's a Fedora Packaging issue, and it was discussed a long time ago:

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-April/msg01229.html

The point I wanted to raise is whether we should revisit this issue
and if we can package unison better.

> I'm not sure how we could better setup the packages... whats the actual
> proposal here? All of the versions in one package is not a good
> solution, IMHO. 

Agreed.  But going through a new package process every time upstream
releases a new version is also not great.

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
New in Fedora 11: Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows
programs, test, and build Windows installers. Over 70 libraries supprt'd
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW http://www.annexia.org/fedora_mingw