On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 01:13:23PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 06/15/2015 12:44 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > I did a bit of experimental packaging of Unison over the weekend, and > > -- proving the importance of creating a mock-up -- I came to realize > > why my proposal was wrong: > > > > - Subpackages would have the wrong version number. eg: If the main > > package was unison-2.48.3-1.fc23, the Unison 2.40 branch subpackage > > would have been called unison240-2.48.3-1.fc23 (containing only > > version 2.40.x). > > You can set arbitrary version numbers on subpackages, so this isn't > really an issue. Blimey, so you can. That's a pretty obscure feature of RPM! I wonder if any packages use it? The packaging guidelines also seem to be unaware of this feature. > > So I guess we're stuck with the old branches in separate packages as > > now. > > Another option would be to press upstream to support Unison across trust > boundaries, which would imply fixing the serialization protocol first > (it is currently horribly unsafe). Agreed, but seems unlikely upstream are going to move to a documented, secure, stable protocol any time this century. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com virt-builder quickly builds VMs from scratch http://libguestfs.org/virt-builder.1.html -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
