On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:15:54 +0100 "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjo...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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. Well, typically we put one upstream source archive per package. What does putting them all in one package gain us? Having to update all of them if any of them need an update? > 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. The problem here is that upstream has no desire to keep a common protocol, so you need the exact version on both ends. (If I recall correctly). So, if you have say a debian box with version foo, you need version foo on the fedora machine to talk to it. In the past this has been done with multiple packages where 'yum install unison' gets you the latest, and if you need an older version you can manually pick and install that one. So, not sure how better to solve this problem than with compatibility packages. kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
