bin/
+
diff --git a/debian/unison-fsmonitor.install b/debian/unison-fsmonitor.install
new file mode 100644
index 000..d1b769e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/debian/unison-fsmonitor.install
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+unison-fsmonitor /usr/bin/
+
--
2.7.4
>From d867d69f083f2fac3ac6fad7334cf0082a2dbc44 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2
Stéphane Glondu writes:
> Isn't python-foo (here, python-unison-fsmonitor) the naming convention
> for stuff implemented in Python?
No idea, is it? ;-)
> Also, why provide both versions? How, as a user, do I choose between
> them? The descriptions are not very explanatory...
In theory both shou
Hi Stephane,
See attached a new patch, that adds only the native fsmonitor.
Thanks, benny
>From edac8a2918aed0eba453a2580d5f2e7f7c0f3ced Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Benjamin Riefenstahl
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 11:10:38 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Add package unison-fsmonitor. (Closes: #819
Hi Stéphane,
> Is there any practical benefit in adding a new binary package?
What is the problem with binary packages?
If you are asking, why not the python version instead, I already said
> The Python version of fsmonitor does seem to be flaky, the OCaml
> version seems better. I prefer it t
Hi Stéphane,
> Binary packages have a cost. They are useful when [...]
Ok, that's your domain, I don't know nothing about the policies here.
> My remark was not related to the python version. I was just wondering if
> unison-fsmonitor could be provided by existing packages instead.
Sure. My pr
5 matches
Mail list logo
