#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