Am Montag, 3. Oktober 2011, 20:26:11 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones: > On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 11:32:18AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:22:28 +0200 > > > > Gregor Tätzner <gregor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Any news from the FESCO team? What's the conclusion of this > > > discussion? > > > > No one has officially asked fesco... > > > > Please file a ticket what you actually want to ask fesco here? > > > > https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/newtplticket > > It's a Fedora Packaging issue, and it was discussed a long time ago: > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-April/msg01229.html > > The point I wanted to raise is whether we should revisit this issue > and if we can package unison better. > > > I'm not sure how we could better setup the packages... whats the actual > > proposal here? All of the versions in one package is not a good > > solution, IMHO. > > Agreed. But going through a new package process every time upstream > releases a new version is also not great. > > Rich. Another idea: Just put in the package *unison* the latest release and when a new shiny version has been released we provide a compat version, so move unison to *unisonXYZ* and update the *unison* package regularly. I suppose this would spare the review process every release? Greg -- Life is cheap, but the accessories can kill you.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
