On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underw...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 21 July 2010 12:12, Adam Williamson <awill...@redhat.com> 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). > > In broad terms, later unison versions are not wire compatible with > earlier ones. i.e. unison developers regularly break wire > compatibility. Since people have a need to synchronize with machines > running different unison versions, multiple unison versions are needed > to be packaged, alas.
Or... you could strong arm those other distros to package the version we package. Here a question... right now... how many compatibility packages are we talking about to get ideal unison version coverage for all possible scenarios for released version across the enormity of pre-packaged distributions? How often does upstream break wire compatibility? 2? 5? 10? 3 billion? And seriously what is stopping those other distributions from providing a newer unison? Don't they have backport repositories or other such to account for this sort of upstream brain damage? Why do we have to carry around old stuff that upstream doesnt support any more just because other distro do? Can't they get the newer one and be compatible with us? -jef -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
