> > > I was being purposely vague because I didn't want to single anyone > out, but no, they're both popular text-only programs. One of > them is behind by a minor version, the other by a major + 2 minors. > > No more clues. :)
Of course, being purposefully vague only serves to annoy us... Which would you rather see as a maintainer, a note saying that some package that you may or may not maintain is behind, but they won't specify which package, or a note that tells you that your package is behind the upstream release? You should probably send a message to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" (I -think- that's the address), with the line "Package: packagename" as the first line in the message. That will send a message only to the maintainer of the package in question, without the rest of us seeing it. Of course, if the newer upstream version of the package fixes important bugs, you might want to file a bug report on those bugs, mentioning tha the newer version fixes them. Or you could look through the bug report archives listed by package, and submit a comment on an existing bug if the upstream version fixes it. If there is a reason why the maintainer hasn't updated it (such as the newer upstream version is still in beta and isn't an "official, public" release, as is the case with libc5, which has a 5.3.x beta series in development), then he/she will likely tell you. Just some ideas, and no need to be purposefully vague.