On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org> wrote: > Certainly, I know for example ResidualVM (a fork of ScummVM) which > uses an embedded and modified Lua 3.1 because that's what the original > Grim Fandango scripts need. The question I guess is to what extent is > the archive supposed to carry how many old versions, and when > developers are supposed to migrate (if it's feasible at all). I guess I > could have formulated that explicitly in the report, because I don't know > your policies about switching the archive to new versions and such, or > when you usually remove old versions when the archive does not need > them anymore. Or after how many new upstream releases (seeing packages > are now starting to switch to Lua 5.2).
If you look at the Lua version timeline, you'll see the duration between major versions increasing exponentially (the last was 6 years). http://www.lua.org/versions.html Each major version is self-contained and bug free. I think the old versions should stay in the archive as long as there are users. Think of the dozens of crappy scripting and extension engines the Debian repo would have to house if Lua didn't exist ;) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
