This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Maintainers/Packages List, 2003-11-22
On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 06:59:12PM -0500, Daniel Reed wrote:
>On the other hand, speaking as a developer, when I do make a release, there
>is usually a decent reason. If nothing else, I believe the maintainers of
>[apparently] out-of-date packages should at least be prepared to explain why
>the package version is lower than the vendor version. I agree this should
>not have to be done repeatedly, though; I marked 2.5.27 as "ignore-before",
>so flex will not show up again until/unless a version newer than 2.5.27 is
>listed in the "Stable" tree at freshmeat.
I don't agree that package maintainers should have to defend the
decision not to release a newer version of a program. It has never,
AFAIK, been a requirement that new packages must be released. It is
just a "would be nice".
However, we obviously don't want popular packages to fall far behind
either. Hopefully, popular packages will have enough user pressure to
cause updates. FWIW, I don't think that byacc is a popular package, so
I don't intend on rigorously keeping it up to date.
>I am also going to look into ways to always pull from the stable tree at
>freshmeat, instead of just whatever tree the vendor listed first (which is
>sometimes the development tree, as is the case with gnugo).
>I am not sure what to do with things like Apache, though. Apache has two
>"stable" trees, 1.3 and 2.0. Both trees still at least have periodic
>maintenance releases, so neither one is necessarily worse than the other,
>but eventually the lower of the two *will* stop being updated. It's just
>that that day has not yet arrived. Freshmeat lists 2.0 as "Stable" and 1.3
>as "1.3", with a separate third "Development" tree.
That's an "up to the maintainer" decision.