unison formal review

Gregor Tätzner gregor at freenet.de
Tue Sep 27 19:27:34 UTC 2011


Am Dienstag, 27. September 2011, 19:46:08 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 05:13:46PM +0200, Gregor Tätzner wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Anyone want to review this one:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734531
> > 
> > I'm sure a lot of Fedora users are awaiting this update.
> 
> Questions ...
> 
> Are we going to obsolete these packages:
> 
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/unison213
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/unison227
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/unison
What do you mean by obsolete? Remove them? What's about the people using older 
releases?

> Instead of introducing yet another variation, can we somehow create a
> single 'unison' package which covers all of the protocol variants?
Something like a single multi-version unison package is possible? And is it 
really worth it? Sounds like a lot of work.

> 
> Adding a new package every time upstream has a slight wobble over the
> Unison protocol just seems wrong to me, and I'm sure there's got to be
> a better way to package this.
> 
> Did you look at what Debian are doing?
Yeah, in each distribution they have only one package with the recent (in 
terms of debian) version. It's splitted up in unison and unison-gtk, though. I 
dont' like it.

> 
> Rich.

Greg


-- 
I'm QUIETLY reading the latest issue of "BOWLING WORLD" while my wife
and two children stand QUIETLY BY ...
-------------- 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/20110927/a282572c/attachment.bin 


More information about the devel mailing list