Greetings, I've seen that the recent net/unison update removes the last 2.32 version from the ports tree. This should have been noted in ports/UPDATING due to critical wire protocol incompatibilities between unison versions. However, there aren't unison 2.40 packages for Ubuntu 10.10, or openSUSE 11.3, these are stuck with unison 2.32. Please provide a unison 2.32 package (and request a repocopy), possibly as net/unison232 and a corresponding ports/UPDATING entry so that users are warned to switch to that package unless all their peer sites have unison 2.40 available. Thank you.
Thank you for pointing out this problem. I agree a UPDATING entry should have been provided. Shame on me for missing this. Sorry for any inconvenience caused by my omission. I'm not quite sure, though, that providing an old revision port for a temporary problem like this is the preferred way to handle this. IMHO a note in updating stating the problem and suggesting not to upgrade or to downgrade the port(using ports-mgmt/portdowngrade or csup manually) should be enough. Especially considering the temporary nature of this problem. In this case an UPDATING entry with this text should do: --- 20110219: AFFECTS: users of net/unison* AUTHOR: mad@madpilot.net net/unison was updated to 2.40.62. This new version uses a wire protocol incompatible with previous versions. You are advised to check that all your peers have been updated at least to this same version before updating yourself. If you have already updated and need to downgrade you can use ports-mgmt/portdowngrade or csup a ports tree before Sat Feb 19 12:52:12 2011 UTC --- > > Please provide a unison 2.32 package (and request a repocopy), possibly > as net/unison232 and a corresponding ports/UPDATING entry so that users are > warned to switch to that package unless all their peer sites have unison 2.40 > available. > Depending on personal taste the above entry could intended as rude, I see. So I'm attaching a shar of the older unison port adapted to be unison232 as asked. I'm not sure if my use of the LATEST_LINK directive is correct. In such a case the following UPDATING entry should be used: --- 20110219: AFFECTS: users of net/unison* AUTHOR: mad@madpilot.net net/unison was updated to 2.40.62. This new version uses a wire protocol incompatible with previous versions. You are advised to check that all your peers have been updated at least to this same version before updating yourself. If you need to stick to 2.32.52 please use the net/unison232 port. --- I'm not quite sure what is the official ports project policy in such a situation, so I'd like some committer to tell me what is the preferred solution. Best regards! -- Guido Falsi <mad@madpilot.net>
NOTE: I answered the email from the submitter, but gnats did not pick it up, so I'm submitting a followup too, so it will be saved in gnats. Thank you for pointing out this problem. I agree a UPDATING entry should have been provided. Shame on me for missing this. Sorry for any inconvenience caused by my omission. I'm not quite sure, though, that providing an old revision port for a temporary problem like this is the preferred way to handle this. IMHO a note in updating stating the problem and suggesting not to upgrade or to downgrade the port(using ports-mgmt/portdowngrade or csup manually) should be enough. Especially considering the temporary nature of this problem. In this case an UPDATING entry with this text should do: --- 20110219: AFFECTS: users of net/unison* AUTHOR: mad@madpilot.net net/unison was updated to 2.40.62. This new version uses a wire protocol incompatible with previous versions. You are advised to check that all your peers have been updated at least to this same version before updating yourself. If you have already updated and need to downgrade you can use ports-mgmt/portdowngrade or csup a ports tree before Sat Feb 19 12:52:12 2011 UTC --- Depending on personal taste the above entry could intended as rude, I see. So I'm attaching a shar of the older unison port adapted to be unison232 as asked. I'm not sure if my use of the LATEST_LINK directive is correct. In such a case the following UPDATING entry should be used: --- 20110219: AFFECTS: users of net/unison* AUTHOR: mad@madpilot.net net/unison was updated to 2.40.62. This new version uses a wire protocol incompatible with previous versions. You are advised to check that all your peers have been updated at least to this same version before updating yourself. If you need to stick to 2.32.52 please use the net/unison232 port. --- I'm not quite sure what is the official ports project policy in such a situation, so I'd like some committer to tell me what is the preferred solution. Best regards! -- Guido Falsi <mad@madpilot.net>
> Thank you for pointing out this problem. > > I agree a UPDATING entry should have been provided. Shame on me for > missing this. > > Sorry for any inconvenience caused by my omission. > > I'm not quite sure, though, that providing an old revision port for a > temporary problem like this is the preferred way to handle this. Yes it is because users do not necessarily have the change of updating their peer computers or requesting an update. There is a long tradition in ports of keeping older versions of packages around after wire protocol changes. We have those for openvpn (openvpn20), openldap, and thereabouts. > IMHO a note in updating stating the problem and suggesting not to > upgrade or to downgrade the port(using ports-mgmt/portdowngrade or csup > manually) should be enough. That's a bigger inconvenience because it breaks the usual package upgrading workflow. > Especially considering the temporary nature of this problem. The temporary nature is your assumption, but not a given. Also, if you use more than one peer, you need to coordinate all upgrades. This, too, is a major inconvenience, or even impossible for some sites. > > In this case an UPDATING entry with this text should do: > > --- > > 20110219: > AFFECTS: users of net/unison* > AUTHOR: mad@madpilot.net > > net/unison was updated to 2.40.62. This new version uses a wire > protocol incompatible with previous versions. You are advised to check > that all your peers have been updated at least to this same version > before updating yourself. > > If you have already updated and need to downgrade you can use > ports-mgmt/portdowngrade or csup a ports tree before Sat Feb 19 12:52:12 > 2011 UTC > > --- > >> >> Please provide a unison 2.32 package (and request a repocopy), possibly >> as net/unison232 and a corresponding ports/UPDATING entry so that users >> are >> warned to switch to that package unless all their peer sites have unison >> 2.40 >> available. >> > > Depending on personal taste the above entry could intended as rude, I > see. So I'm attaching a shar of the older unison port adapted to be > unison232 as asked. > > I'm not sure if my use of the LATEST_LINK directive is correct. > > In such a case the following UPDATING entry should be used: > > --- > > 20110219: > AFFECTS: users of net/unison* > AUTHOR: mad@madpilot.net > > net/unison was updated to 2.40.62. This new version uses a wire > protocol incompatible with previous versions. You are advised to check > that all your peers have been updated at least to this same version > before updating yourself. > > If you need to stick to 2.32.52 please use the net/unison232 port. This would have to have detailed portmaster/portupgrade -o ... instructions. Also note that a previous unison-devel/unison upgrade/shuffle would also have needed a unison entry. I think, however, we should only add one entry stating the "if you have updated before ... and want ..., do: if you have updated between ... and want ..., do ..." style. > I'm not quite sure what is the official ports project policy in such a > situation, so I'd like some committer to tell me what is the preferred > solution. See above. :-) I'll request a repocopy of the older net/unison port to net/unison232. Would you be willing to act as its maintainer? If not, I'll take it. Thanks & best regards Matthias -- Matthias Andree
Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-ports-bugs->mandree I'll take it.
State Changed From-To: open->repocopy please repocopy net/unison as of before Sat Feb 19 12:52:12 2011 UTC, we need need to provide 2.32.* as old version. Thanks. Suggested destination net/unison232
Responsible Changed From-To: mandree->portmgr please repocopy net/unison as of before Sat Feb 19 12:52:12 2011 UTC, we need need to provide 2.32.* as old version. Thanks. Suggested destination net/unison232
On 02/20/11 19:34, Matthias Andree wrote: >> Depending on personal taste the above entry could intended as rude, I >> see. So I'm attaching a shar of the older unison port adapted to be >> unison232 as asked. >> >> I'm not sure if my use of the LATEST_LINK directive is correct. >> >> In such a case the following UPDATING entry should be used: >> >> --- >> >> 20110219: >> AFFECTS: users of net/unison* >> AUTHOR: mad@madpilot.net >> >> net/unison was updated to 2.40.62. This new version uses a wire >> protocol incompatible with previous versions. You are advised to check >> that all your peers have been updated at least to this same version >> before updating yourself. >> >> If you need to stick to 2.32.52 please use the net/unison232 port. > > This would have to have detailed portmaster/portupgrade -o ... > instructions. Also note that a previous unison-devel/unison > upgrade/shuffle would also have needed a unison entry. I think, however, > we should only add one entry stating the "if you have updated before ... > and want ..., do: if you have updated between ... and want ..., do ..." > style. Ok, I reword it: --- 20110219: AFFECTS: users of net/unison* AUTHOR: mad@madpilot.net net/unison was updated to 2.40.62. This new version uses a wire protocol incompatible with previous versions. You are advised to check that all your peers have been updated at least to this same version before updating yourself. If you need to stick to 2.32.52 and/or you have already upgraded and want to downgrade you can move to the net/unison232 with: # portmaster -o net/unison unison if you use portupgrade just substitute portupgrade for portmaster in the above command line. --- I think this is all that is needed. Please note that I've not been using portupgrade for a long time. I just copied another UPDATING entry. If the portupgrade part is wrong please feel free to correct me. > >> I'm not quite sure what is the official ports project policy in such a >> situation, so I'd like some committer to tell me what is the preferred >> solution. > > See above. :-) > > I'll request a repocopy of the older net/unison port to net/unison232. > Would you be willing to act as its maintainer? If not, I'll take it. I can maintain it. I'll check tomorrow if the repocopy is finished and prepare diffs if needed to make it work just like the old port did. -- Guido Falsi <mad@madpilot.net>
State Changed From-To: repocopy->open Repocopy complete.
Responsible Changed From-To: portmgr->mandree Repocopy complete.
State Changed From-To: open->analyzed A CONFLICTS-free unison232 port that installs into separate directories and modifies executable names has been queued for Tinderbox testing.
State Changed From-To: analyzed->closed committed - Guido, if you want to take over maintainership, that's fine with me, I just didn't want to foist lots of unrelated changes. Just drop me a note if you want to take 2.32 over in the shape I've committed it.