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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
