Discussion:
Bug#819341: [unison] Please build unison-fsmonitor
Add Reply
Liang Guo
2016-03-27 01:10:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Package: unison
Version: 2.48.3-1
Severity: wishlist

In unison 2.48.3, a native fsmonitor is introduced, with the new fsmonitor,
unison can impliment dropbox like sync on demand,following is quotad from
upstream NEWS:

* File system monitoring:
+ The file watcher now fails when unable to watch a directory,
rather than silently ignoring the issue.
+ File system monitoring: more robust communication with the
helper program (in socket mode, the unison server will still
work properly despite unexpected unison client
disconnections).
+ A bytecode version of unison-fsmonitor is now produced by
"make NATIVE=false"
+ Improved search for unison-fsmonitor

In Debian, unison is compile with NATIVE=true, so unison-fsmonitor is not
compiled, would you compile unison with NATIVE=true to build unison-fsmonitor?

Thanks,



--- System information. ---
Architecture: amd64
Kernel: Linux 4.3.0-1-amd64

Debian Release: stretch/sid
500 unstable 192.168.2.12
1 experimental 192.168.2.12

--- Package information. ---
Depends (Version) | Installed
======================-+-===========
libc6 (>= 2.7) |


Recommends (Version) | Installed
=============================-+-===========
ssh-client |
OR openssh-client | 1:7.2p2-2


Package's Suggests field is empty.
--
Thanks and Regards,
--
Liang Guo
http://bluestone.cublog.cn
Benjamin Riefenstahl
2019-02-19 12:10:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I'm interested in getting this integrated. The Python version of
fsmonitor does seem to be flaky, the OCaml version seems better. I
prefer it to be packaged in Debian.

I have updated John's patch above and based it on the current Git in
https://salsa.debian.org/ocaml-team/unison.git .

What else can I do to get there?
Stéphane Glondu
2019-02-19 12:30:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Benjamin Riefenstahl
I'm interested in getting this integrated. The Python version of
fsmonitor does seem to be flaky, the OCaml version seems better. I
prefer it to be packaged in Debian.
I have updated John's patch above and based it on the current Git in
https://salsa.debian.org/ocaml-team/unison.git .
What else can I do to get there?
Thank you for your work!

Isn't python-foo (here, python-unison-fsmonitor) the naming convention
for stuff implemented in Python?

Also, why provide both versions? How, as a user, do I choose between
them? The descriptions are not very explanatory...


Cheers,
--
Stéphane
Benjamin Riefenstahl
2019-02-19 14:10:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stéphane Glondu
Isn't python-foo (here, python-unison-fsmonitor) the naming convention
for stuff implemented in Python?
No idea, is it? ;-)
Post by Stéphane Glondu
Also, why provide both versions? How, as a user, do I choose between
them? The descriptions are not very explanatory...
In theory both should work, I have not seen the author to prefer one or
the other (I have not looked very hard, though). I tried to use the
Python script (it was ok for me to just install the one script from the
source), but it did not work reliably for me. Once the packaging is
automated, the Python script is probably not needed any more in Debian,
so we could just drop that one from the patch. Let me know, if I you
want a modified patch.
Benjamin Riefenstahl
2019-03-21 13:00:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Hi Stephane,

See attached a new patch, that adds only the native fsmonitor.

Thanks, benny
Stéphane Glondu
2019-12-02 12:20:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Benjamin Riefenstahl
See attached a new patch, that adds only the native fsmonitor.
Is there any practical benefit in adding a new binary package?


Cheers,
--
Stéphane
Benjamin Riefenstahl
2019-12-03 10:00:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Hi Stéphane,
Post by Stéphane Glondu
Is there any practical benefit in adding a new binary package?
What is the problem with binary packages?

If you are asking, why not the python version instead, I already said
Post by Stéphane Glondu
The Python version of fsmonitor does seem to be flaky, the OCaml
version seems better. I prefer it to be packaged in Debian.
To be more specific, the Python version did not work well enough in our
use case, while the OCaml does what we want.

benny
Stéphane Glondu
2019-12-04 14:50:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Benjamin Riefenstahl
Post by Stéphane Glondu
Is there any practical benefit in adding a new binary package?
What is the problem with binary packages?
Binary packages have a cost. They are useful when they have additional
dependencies (that are optional for the main package) or when better
sharing is achieved (typical cases: -doc, or -common packages). Maybe
other cases.
Post by Benjamin Riefenstahl
If you are asking, why not the python version instead, I already said
My remark was not related to the python version. I was just wondering if
unison-fsmonitor could be provided by existing packages instead.

Since this needs to go through the NEW queue, I will take the
opportunity to create a package co-installable with the one in stable,
as Vincent suggested.


Cheers,
--
Stéphane
Benjamin Riefenstahl
2019-12-04 16:00:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Hi Stéphane,
Binary packages have a cost. They are useful when [...]
Ok, that's your domain, I don't know nothing about the policies here.
My remark was not related to the python version. I was just wondering if
unison-fsmonitor could be provided by existing packages instead.
Sure. My primary interest is just that it is installable somehow, so
that we do not have to continue to build our own at some point. I was
just taking what John Lenton had already been offering and tweaking it.

Anyway, let me know if I can be of further help.

Thanks,
benny

Anton Avramov
2019-11-15 17:10:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Dear maintainer,

Will this get added to debian packages, so we can use unison-fsmonitor?

Thank you for all your work.
Loading...