unison formal review

[Gregor Tätzner]

Am Montag, 3. Oktober 2011, 20:26:11 schrieb 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.

Another idea: Just put in the package *unison* the latest release and when a 
new shiny version has been released we provide a compat version, so move 
unison to *unisonXYZ* and update the *unison* package regularly.

I suppose this would spare the review process every release?

Greg

-- 
Life is cheap, but the accessories can kill you.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20111003/c2a265c2/attachment.bin