[Bug 433915] Review Request: unison2.13 - File synchronization tool (compatibility package)

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: unison2.13 - File synchronization tool (compatibility package)


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433915





------- Additional Comments From s-t-rhbugzilla at wwwdotorg.org  2008-02-22 15:20 EST -------
Andrew,

Yes, I totally agree. However, it doesn't seem like discussion on Fedora-devel
was moving in the direction of making plain old "unison" continue to be 2.13,
hence I'm trying to get 2.13 back into F8 ASAP.

FYI, my long term goals would be a situation as follows:

For *all* versions of Unison, there will be a "versioned" package unison2.13,
unison2.27 etc.

There will also be an "unversioned" or "meta" package representing the moving
latest version.

This main unison package could contain nothing but the following symlink that
moves based on latest version:

/usr/bin/unison -> /usr/bin/unison-${version}

and a Requires ensuring that the relevant "versioned" package is installed.

This allows all of:

* People can ensure a specific version is installed by installing the versioned
package, with no special cases for whatever the latest version is (since there
will be a versioned package for the latest version too)

* People only interested in interoperability with other Fedora installations at
the same release level can simply install "unison" and have it upgrade whenever
(this still allows us to implement whatever policy we want regarding when to
point this "meta"-package at new versions.)

* People can have N different specific versions installed too, for
interoperability with multiple other systems.

The only issue I see is that if somebody installs plain "unison", and this gets
upgraded, then the old "versioned" package will get left behind. Perhaps the
main unversioned package should just have a copy of the latest app, and not be a
symlink/requires; that would solve this at the potential expense of having two
copies of the latest if explicit versioned packages are installed.

Perhaps if there's further discussion of the above, we should do it on the
mailing list, so the bug doesn't get full up and distract from review?


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.