> The archive format is an on-disk thing, and not really relevant to network > compatibility. > The reason for the (overly) strict initial version check is to avoid any > need for versioning or compatibility in the protocol that follows the > initial greeting.
Ah, okay. > Debian seem to be packaging just the current stable 2.9.1. True, but they're lagging. 2.9.1 is fairly old, and there have been some substantial bug fixes since then. I wrote to the current Unison maintainer for Debian a few months ago, and asked whether he planned to package a later version. He said yes, but first he had to fly around the world and then write a PhD dissertation. I wonder which version other major distros are using. I can look into that. If the major distros are all stuck in 2.9.1, then I guess I can just package 2.9.1 and everyone will be able to talk to each other, at least until the <a href=" http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unison-users/message/2885";>deadlock bug</a> kicks in. > I suggest following their example, and trying to convince the upstream > maintainers that their current compatibility scheme is extremely > packaging-unfriendly. Fair enough, but Unison development has "officially" stopped, which means that a new feature in the Unison protocol is unlikely to be implemented any time soon. OTOH, maybe I can convince the developers that it's time to release a new stable version, including the many bug fixes since 2.9.1. Then we can prod everyone else to upgrade to that.
