Re: Fedora packaging: unison?
Adam Williamson wrote: What was the initial reason for the 2.18 / 2.27 packaging split? Is there any reason to continue to package multiple releases? Should we just go back to having a single, 2.32-versioned 'unison' package, or should we bump unison227 to be 2.32, or add a unison232 package? My memory[1] scares me sometimes. [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-April/msg01229.html -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora packaging: unison?
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 11:51 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: Adam Williamson wrote: What was the initial reason for the 2.18 / 2.27 packaging split? Is there any reason to continue to package multiple releases? Should we just go back to having a single, 2.32-versioned 'unison' package, or should we bump unison227 to be 2.32, or add a unison232 package? My memory[1] scares me sometimes. [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-April/msg01229.html Thanks, but afaics that thread doesn't really answer any of my questions, it's just a bunch of yum technicalities about how the implementation of having two packages actually works. What I'm interested in is what was the original reason for having two branches packaged, and do we still need to do it (or even have 3). -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora packaging: unison?
On 21 July 2010 12:12, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: Thanks, but afaics that thread doesn't really answer any of my questions, it's just a bunch of yum technicalities about how the implementation of having two packages actually works. What I'm interested in is what was the original reason for having two branches packaged, and do we still need to do it (or even have 3). In broad terms, later unison versions are not wire compatible with earlier ones. i.e. unison developers regularly break wire compatibility. Since people have a need to synchronize with machines running different unison versions, multiple unison versions are needed to be packaged, alas. Jonathan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora packaging: unison?
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:51:02 -0500, Michael wrote: Adam Williamson wrote: What was the initial reason for the 2.18 / 2.27 packaging split? Is there any reason to continue to package multiple releases? Should we just go back to having a single, 2.32-versioned 'unison' package, or should we bump unison227 to be 2.32, or add a unison232 package? My memory[1] scares me sometimes. [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-April/msg01229.html My memory adds that it has been discussed somewhere else, perhaps on EPEL's list. The multiple packages were needed for compatibility. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora packaging: unison?
Adam Williamson wrote: Thanks, but afaics that thread doesn't really answer any of my questions, it's just a bunch of yum technicalities about how the implementation of having two packages actually works. What I'm interested in is what was the original reason for having two branches packaged, and do we still need to do it (or even have 3). Jeff Splata's reply seemed to be enlightening, at least to me: The unison developers..in their infinite wisdom have decided that they don't actually want to worry about backwards compatibility between client versions, so if you need to talk across the network to different machines you need to be sure you have the same version of unison available on both machines or the magic doesn't work. The horrible horrible package naming for unison that we have is a result of that upstream decision to make sure people who want to use unison can be sure they have the right versions of unison installed to communicate to machines running other operating systems. The package naming in the case of unison is done deliberately to break how version comparison in the package system is suppose to work.It's a corner case... that needs to die. Adding more logic at the packaging layer to support what is really upstream's inability to provide adequate protocol versioning support is wasted effort. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora packaging: unison?
Michael Cronenworth wrote: Jeff Splata's reply seemed to be enlightening, at least to me: /s/Splata/Spaleta/ Sorry, Jeff! -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora packaging: unison?
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 12:58 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: Adam Williamson wrote: Thanks, but afaics that thread doesn't really answer any of my questions, it's just a bunch of yum technicalities about how the implementation of having two packages actually works. What I'm interested in is what was the original reason for having two branches packaged, and do we still need to do it (or even have 3). Jeff Splata's reply seemed to be enlightening, at least to me: ah, thanks, missed that one. I guess we could have a look and see what versions are in the still-supported releases of popular distros, and just go with those. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora packaging: unison?
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 July 2010 12:12, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: Thanks, but afaics that thread doesn't really answer any of my questions, it's just a bunch of yum technicalities about how the implementation of having two packages actually works. What I'm interested in is what was the original reason for having two branches packaged, and do we still need to do it (or even have 3). In broad terms, later unison versions are not wire compatible with earlier ones. i.e. unison developers regularly break wire compatibility. Since people have a need to synchronize with machines running different unison versions, multiple unison versions are needed to be packaged, alas. Or... you could strong arm those other distros to package the version we package. Here a question... right now... how many compatibility packages are we talking about to get ideal unison version coverage for all possible scenarios for released version across the enormity of pre-packaged distributions? How often does upstream break wire compatibility? 2? 5? 10? 3 billion? And seriously what is stopping those other distributions from providing a newer unison? Don't they have backport repositories or other such to account for this sort of upstream brain damage? Why do we have to carry around old stuff that upstream doesnt support any more just because other distro do? Can't they get the newer one and be compatible with us? -jef -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
