On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Atsuhito Kohda wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:01:17 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > This certainly doesn't match up with the information that's available > > on their website, especially considering that 2.8.6 is their release > > version, they're iterating new development releases every 3-6 months > > which will eventually be released at 2.9 or 2.8.7. > > Hmm, not a weekly-release.
Right. > > So whatever development version we release with you'll be putting > > in the effort to backport patches to it, even if we're the only > > distribution who happens to be distributing that release, and > > you're willing to track it for a full release cycle? (Three > > years?) > > In the first place, as a volunteer, there is no warranty. Right. > I'm not sure what you mean but it seems lynx in Debian/etch is of > 2.8.5 but it is of 2.8.6 in Gentoo, OpenSuse as I checked on my > VirtualBox. Yeah, I definetly agree that we should be releasing 2.8.6, not the old version of lynx that we were. > It is not so much sense to argue possibility but I'm afraid Debian's > release period is generally so long that the possibility you > mentioned could happen more likely with a stable version. That's your call to make, possibly with the consultation of the stable security team. If it were me, I'd personally be very nervous about having to support a development version that no other distribution would be using, and that upstream never actually released as a stable release. I'd have to carefully weigh the frequency of security vulnerabilities with the time necessary to backport the security fix from the upstream development code against my time availability in the future. I cloned and reopened this bug primarily because it wasn't obvious that the above had been done, and the log didn't spell this out; the few things in the log also didn't mesh with the information that was in the upstream web pages. [Though I didn't check with upstream themselves, so.] Anyway, feel free to close this bug report if you feel that the above has been weighed, and that you've contemplated the concerns that I have. Don Armstrong -- Dropping non-free would set us back at least, what, 300 packages? It'd take MONTHS to make up the difference, and meanwhile Debian users will be fleeing to SLACKWARE. And what about SHAREHOLDER VALUE? -- Matt Zimmerman in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
