[Re-send it, please disregard if it is a duplicate] Hi Alexander,
On Mon, Jan 26, at 11:16 Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > Hello, > > there is a ticket (http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/2821) > that explains why BLFS shouldn't update to a new version of Mut now > (i.e.: known bug in that release). Since many BLFS users (especially > after a stable release) completely disregard versions and always use the > latest ones (and in many other cases that's fine), I propose to mark all > such cases of broken upstream with more than a Trac ticket. > Thanks for your interest, but (and sorry for the expression) "s*t happens" in a development cycle. Developer is trying to fix a bug and then introduce another and this a fairly common scenario. In other distributions this doesn't look like a big problem, since the package maintainer probably is monitoring the mailing lists and the bug tracker and take measures (user land usually doesn't even know what is going on behind the interface). But speaking for Blfs there are some differences: - we don't have an organized team (I don't say this is bad, I am just trying to emphasize), so we don't have - hmm how I will say it? - "page maintainers?", who they will inform with a way the user land for a buggy release - our development cycle is slow; so the user quite frequently *updates* the package that has some interest, before even the update goes in the book (this is logical and for me is desirable, under some circumstances - users for some reasons are inactive, and while they are following development by monitoring the mailing lists, the bug tracker, they are not involved About the latter, here is an example: Blfs user has a problem with a specific software, while he follows exact instructions from the book. User goes upstream and make question. Upstream answers that this is a bug and it will be fixed in the next release. User doesn't report back to BLFS. Me visits for another reason (last night) the web interface of the mailing list and he sees the question, you can see by yourself, here: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.fcron.general/45 So while I (obviously agree with your conclusion) - User don't see the update coming in the book and take his own route and installs a buggy release - so my question is: Why this apathy? And I am positive (we all have some experiences and daily touch perhaps with other distributions), that *this doesn't happen elsewhere*. This looks like a unique (B)LFS phenomenon. > In other words, the explanation why Mutt-1.5.19 is bad should be in the > book. I will try to fix it, either by following your way, or to back port the patch (preferable). William, if you want to do that (as it seems you do), here is the commit that fixes the reported problem. http://dev.mutt.org/hg/mutt/rev/10e224e86f0b Then attach it (a properly formated patch with the usual headers) in the track ticket and I will push it. Then we will update. > Alexander E. Patrakov Regards, Ag. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
