> If you do re-add Unison, please let me & Jerry James know because
> we'll have to add it to the list of OCaml packages that get rebuilt
> whenever OCaml is updated.
I've packaged the latest upstream unison v2.53.5 in f39, f40, rawhide, and
epel9 branches now [1-4]. For epel9, I had to disable t
On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 02:19:36AM -, Matthew Krupcale wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I am interested in taking ownership of the unison package [1]. The
> most recent discussion on this topic of which I'm aware is from
> 2018-05 [2], which was attempting to bring all of the vario
> Am 25.04.2024 um 04:19 schrieb Matthew Krupcale :
>
> Hello all,
>
> I am interested in taking ownership of the unison package [1]. The most
> recent discussion on this topic of which I'm aware is from 2018-05 [2], which
> was attempting to bring all of the va
Hello all,
I am interested in taking ownership of the unison package [1]. The most recent
discussion on this topic of which I'm aware is from 2018-05 [2], which was
attempting to bring all of the various unison versions [3-5] packaged in Fedora
into a single spec file. That never happened
[Anonymously forwarding this to devel mailing list]
> First, thank you for having maintained the Unison packages in Fedora
> for years, as I suppose keeping it compatible with other distros (or
> even with Fedora itself) through OCaml version nonsense must not
> have been particularly fun. You hav
Hi,
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 09:13:09AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 9:07 AM Till Maas wrote:
> > Yes and yes, otherwise one could not synchronise between older and newer
> > Fedoras.
> >
> >
> If they needed to sync between older systems, couldn't the newer ones just
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 08:47:45PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I wonder are there any other single RPM modules? I'm only
> used to large multi-package modules like virt.
Since "make a module of it!" is our path for getting from stream
branches to actually released, I'm going to convert som
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 3:48 PM Richard W.M. Jones
wrote:
>
> I wonder are there any other single RPM modules? I'm only
> used to large multi-package modules like virt.
>
>
Node.js's 8.x stream, for example:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/modules/nodejs/blob/8/f/nodejs.yaml
_
I wonder are there any other single RPM modules? I'm only
used to large multi-package modules like virt.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-df lists disk usage of gue
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 1:33 PM Stephen Gallagher
wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 9:49 AM Richard W.M. Jones
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 08:53:25AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> > Are these packages parallel-installable (and do they need to be?)
>>
>> In theory, although practica
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 9:49 AM Richard W.M. Jones
wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 08:53:25AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > Are these packages parallel-installable (and do they need to be?)
>
> In theory, although practically it probably wouldn't be the end of the
> world if they were not
> "RWMJ" == Richard W M Jones writes:
RWMJ> But wouldn't a single package in fact be preferable, as it'll be
RWMJ> simpler than maintaining multiple packages:
I would argue that it's far from preferable, because you would have
multiple things on different release schedules in one package. A
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 08:53:25AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Are these packages parallel-installable (and do they need to be?)
In theory, although practically it probably wouldn't be the end of the
world if they were not parallel installable (it's my understanding
that the current module p
On 31 May 2018 at 09:13, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 9:07 AM Till Maas wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 08:53:25AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>
>> > Are these packages parallel-installable (and do they need to be?) It
>> > seems
>>
>> Yes and yes, otherwise on
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 01:45:19PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 31/05/18 13:31, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> >Although this is very slightly dubious from a packaging point of view,
> >I believe it's the best solution here. It means we can build multiple
> >versions, we don't need to go through
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 9:07 AM Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 08:53:25AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> > Are these packages parallel-installable (and do they need to be?) It
> seems
>
> Yes and yes, otherwise one could not synchronise between older and newer
> Fedoras.
>
>
If t
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 08:53:25AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Are these packages parallel-installable (and do they need to be?) It seems
Yes and yes, otherwise one could not synchronise between older and newer
Fedoras.
> to me like this would be a FAR better solution as a module. You just
rent Linux distros, which have different
> versions of Unison.
>
> For this reason, Fedora packages three different Unison branches in
> separate packages:
>
> * unison213 (currently Unison 2.13.16)
> * unison227 (currently Unison 2.27.157)
> * unison240 (currently Unison 2
On 31/05/18 13:31, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Although this is very slightly dubious from a packaging point of view,
I believe it's the best solution here. It means we can build multiple
versions, we don't need to go through the new package review process
every time upstream releases a new major
e packages:
* unison213 (currently Unison 2.13.16)
* unison227 (currently Unison 2.27.157)
* unison240 (currently Unison 2.40.128)
* There was a "unison" package, but it is retired
We don't package the latest upstream versions (Unison 2.48.4,
Unison 2.51.2) at all.
Because of what
Hello,
I'd like to ask about the status of unison package in Fedora.
Currently there's version 2.13 & 2.27 from F12 distribution. There've been two
more major releases of unison not included in Fedora.
I saw a conversation regarding unison
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/p
21 matches
Mail list logo
