Bug 1861320 - Unison is missing from EPEL 8 [NEEDINFO]
Summary: Unison is missing from EPEL 8
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Fedora EPEL
Classification: Fedora
Component: unison
Version: epel8
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Matthew Krupcale
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-07-28 09:57 UTC by Persona non grata
Modified: 2026-05-28 10:37 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2026-05-27 23:04:54 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:
ben.argyle: needinfo? (extras-orphan)


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Persona non grata 2020-07-28 09:57:21 UTC
Unison is missing from EPEL 8

Thank U all !

Comment 1 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2021-04-23 00:36:44 UTC
This package has changed maintainer in Fedora. Reassigning to the new maintainer of this component.

Comment 2 Ben 2021-05-21 11:29:41 UTC
Dear EPEL/Unison package Maintainer(s),

A bump from me, please!  I could really do with having Unison packaged for RHEL8 in EPEL.  Please let me know if there's anything I can do to move this forward.  As a data point the EPEL packages unison240*-2.40.128-5.el7.x86_64.rpm install on RHEL8 and work perfectly well, so I'd hope that... ?version 2.51? should repackage for RHEL8 easily.

With very grateful thanks!

Ben

Comment 3 Ben 2023-06-07 16:04:21 UTC
Is there any chance of a version of Unison for RHEL 8 (and RHEL 9 at this point), please?

Comment 4 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2024-06-02 05:59:06 UTC
This package has changed maintainer in Fedora. Reassigning to the new maintainer of this component.

Comment 5 Matthew Krupcale 2026-05-25 01:46:07 UTC
(In reply to Ben from comment #3)
> Is there any chance of a version of Unison for RHEL 8 (and RHEL 9 at this
> point), please?

Hey Ben, is there still interest in packaging unison for RHEL 8? I've packaged it for both RHEL 9 and 10 at this point but have not tried RHEL 8.

Comment 6 Ben 2026-05-27 09:10:39 UTC
(In reply to Matthew Krupcale from comment #5)
> (In reply to Ben from comment #3)
> > Is there any chance of a version of Unison for RHEL 8 (and RHEL 9 at this
> > point), please?
> 
> Hey Ben, is there still interest in packaging unison for RHEL 8? I've
> packaged it for both RHEL 9 and 10 at this point but have not tried RHEL 8.

Yes please!  Very much hoping for a RHEL 8 Unison!  Thank you!

Comment 7 Matthew Krupcale 2026-05-27 23:03:51 UTC
(In reply to Ben from comment #6)
> (In reply to Matthew Krupcale from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Ben from comment #3)
> > > Is there any chance of a version of Unison for RHEL 8 (and RHEL 9 at this
> > > point), please?
> > 
> > Hey Ben, is there still interest in packaging unison for RHEL 8? I've
> > packaged it for both RHEL 9 and 10 at this point but have not tried RHEL 8.
> 
> Yes please!  Very much hoping for a RHEL 8 Unison!  Thank you!

Hey Ben, sorry to get your hopes up, but I did a test build of unison v2.54.0 on RHEL 8, and they all failed [1]. I believe the cause is that the OCaml compiler on RHEL 8 is too old (v4.07), and indeed unison v2.53.0+ requires OCaml >= 4.08. unison v2.52.1 will perhaps build with the RHEL 8 OCaml v4.07 compiler (I have not tried), but I will not attempt to build this older version of unison for RHEL 8 myself. The good news is that the v2.52 series should at least be wire-protocol compatible with the latest v2.54, so if you can manage to build unison v2.52 for RHEL 8, it should work with the newer versions packaged on the newer distros.

[1] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mkrupcale/rhel-8-unison/build/10510772/

Comment 8 Ben 2026-05-28 10:37:58 UTC
Hi Matt,

Thanks very much for trying.  Completely understandable that you won't bother.  We'll stick with the RHEL 7 unison240 packages on RHEL 8, which have worked without issue for years.  Thank you for providing a native package for RHEL 9 and 10 though.  That will help us enormously.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.