On 09/16/2009 06:43 AM, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 11:32 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote: >> Looking through the mailing list archives, as far as I can tell, noone >> has tried this course of action yet: >> >> 1) Ask zlib upstream to accept the changes that the rsync devs made to >> zlib and issue a new release >> 2) Ask rsync upstream to support the new version of zlib >> 3) Ask zsync upstream to support the new version of zlib >> >> Surely that's the right solution, and the first thing that should be >> tried? > > My recollection is that 1 was tried and upstream said no. This was tried by upstream rsync. > So 2,3 became > moot. > This is a logical leap. rsync has forked zlib but they are only using the fork internally. 2 and 3 get that fork out in the open so that more than one program can use it. 2 and 3 are solutions when solution 1 fails. Since solution 1 has failed, 2 and 3 become *relevant*, not moot. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
