On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 11:54:13AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Samuel Thibault, on Mon 04 Apr 2016 10:34:04 +0200, wrote: > > Martin Quinson, on Wed 30 Mar 2016 23:07:45 +0200, wrote: > > > The r1430 is already almost 2 years old, and we start advising to our > > > users to > > > not go for the debian package but for the svn version. This is somehow > > > suboptimal, and I'd be thankful if you could update the package at some > > > point. > > > > I'm wondering: what makes you request to use the svn version? AFAIK > > The svn contains only 3 new commits: an option for using qt5 (which > > we already use in Debian), a fix for segfault at application closing, > > and a fix for a "crash when doing stats on states which don't have a > > container", which IIRC only happens on bogus traces. > > And that fix is already applied as a patch in Debian. > > So I'm really wondering what a newer upstream snapshot would bring :)
Actually, it seemed to me that the debian package is at svn1430, and checking on https://gforge.inria.fr/scm/browser.php?group_id=1596 it seems that the svn is at r1604, which is more than just a few patches forward. Commit 1430 seems to be from Fri May 9 13:42:51 2014 UTC (22 months, 3 weeks ago). So, the addition of almost 2 years and over 150 commits make me think that the package could be updated. Another argument was that one of our user was experiencing issues with Vite, leading me to check whether the package was uptodate. But it turns out that the error was on his side, not on Vite side. To summarize, you know the package better than I do. Feel free to close the bug (and pardon me) if you think that I misjudged the situation. Bye, Mt. -- VI VI VI The editor of the beast.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
