Hello Steve, On Sat, 21 May 2005 03:10:19 -0700 Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Timo Lindfors has pointed out to me on IRC that this is a duplicate of bug > #300889, which was fixed upstream in 0.10.4. That version hasn't reached > testing yet, though, because there have been 6 new uploads since the middle > of last month. Is 0.10.4-6 suitable for release in your opinion? It seems > to me that this package is still in flux, so I'm inclined to suggest a > backported fix to testing-proposed-updates for this bug. If you think > 0.10.4-6 is ready, we can push that in instead, but it seems to me that > 0.9.3 is much more stable and a backport is less likely to lead to a > last-minute removal of elinks from sarge. I was pondering this for the last week. First, there were no real security bugs fixed, but many small ones (like the DoS with frames). Second, there were lots of small annoying ones fixed (like endless refresh on sourceforge). Third, I just checked and there wasn't really any upstream screwups in the last years, the new package bugs usually exist in old versions too. Many versions are due to new upstream releases and my packaging woes. Fourth, um, that's 0.10.4-7 we're talking about due to a problem of type-handling (see bug #309367) which dislikes new dpkg-architecure and I didn't notice that. (It'll be the same as -6 but with a non-screwed control field.) Apart from that I believe 0.10.4-7 is in far better shape than 0.9.xx, and it is supposed to handle multiple arch compiles better (I don't find the bug now but was related to type-handling and autotools-dev somewhere), and contains elinks-lite, which was a long-long-long standing wish from many people with small systems. I am not really familiar with uploading to frozen, and who to bribe, etc. :) I dare to say that 0.10.4-7 have good chances to stay in, any errors there may only be related to my packaging screwups :-/ [which seems to work right now(tm)] What I cannot do is get the backport done (due to lack of time) and I doubt upstream would be anything but angry to let an old version in. What do you think? Peter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
