On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 07:19 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:14:22PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 19:00 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:29:09PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > > >>>>> "RWMJ" == Richard W M Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > > > RWMJ> I will take ocaml* and unison*. > > > > > > > > I have orphaned them; feel free to take ownership. > > > > > > Done, thanks. > > > > what do you plan to do with unison, and its incompatibility quirkiness? > > (I just ask because at present I have to use a private build because > > Mandriva moved on to a newer stable release, so I have to run that on my > > Fedora systems to remain interoperable). > > Yes, it's a big mess. I don't think maintaining separate *packages* > for each version / protocol level is in any way scalable. Can we fold > all the versions into a single package, if necessary carrying and > building several source tarballs? off the top of my head I think we *could*, but it's not necessarily a lot cleaner; they'd all have to have different executable names, for one thing. but yeah, I don't think there's any reason we can't do this, just carry multiple tarballs and expand and build them one at a time in the spec. I think the previous maintainer planned to just maintain two or possibly max three versions at a time, and obsolete older ones...but that still requires a new package review for each new incompatible version. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
