[MacPorts] #35639: Unison 2.32 port
MacPorts
noreply at macports.org
Mon Aug 13 17:37:37 PDT 2012
#35639: Unison 2.32 port
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
Reporter: rwilcox@… | Owner: macports-tickets@…
Type: submission | Status: new
Priority: Normal | Milestone:
Component: ports | Version: 2.1.2
Keywords: | Port:
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
Comment(by rwilcox@…):
Replying to [comment:1 ryandesign@…]:
> Thanks.
>
> You've named this new port unison32, but since the version of this port
is 2.32.52 it seems best to name the port unison232. Does that sound ok to
you?
Absolutely!
>
> Since this situation of needing the same version of unison on the client
and server seems destined to continue,
> we should replace the existing unison port with a unison240 port, and in
future add new ports if new versions
> of unison are released.
Agreed.
> The new unison232 and unison240 ports must have their install locations
changed so that they do not
> conflict with one another.
I'm curious what would happen if you had two unison versions installed at
the same time. For example, are there any changes to the settings and/or
various archive formats that makes having two versions of Unison
simultaneously installed a Really Bad Idea.
Right now my workflow mostly has me running Unison 232, but every once in
a while I deactivate and activate unison240... which may disprove my
point.
> You indicated you'd like to maintain this new unison232 port. Would you
like to maintain the new unison240
> port and the unison stub port as well?
Sure. I've been using Unison something like 20 times a day for the last
year or so, so it's a pretty important part of my toolchain at this point.
Setting the openmaintainer would be awesome also.
> There are some probably unintended differences between this new
unison232 port and the existing unison port,
> such as the missing license line and the missing description of the aqua
variant.
Yes, if anything happened in Macports convention since the last time
Unison 2.32 was in the tree, probably those bits in the Portfile have
rotted too.
> I will investigate whether it might be simpler to implement the
unison232 and unison240 ports as subports
> of the unison port; this would eliminate the need to manually keep
separate portfiles synchronized.
I had no idea Macports could do that now. That might be interesting.
> I can work on these various issues tomorrow, if you have no objections,
and I'll attach new Portfiles
> here for your contemplation.
Thank you very much, that sounds great to me!
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/35639#comment:2>
MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/>
Ports system for Mac OS
More information about the macports-tickets
mailing list