Quoth the Willie Wong > On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 11:30:40AM -0700, Darren Kirby wrote: > > > > Well, I'm the upstream author, and _I_ think there should be > > > > different (ie: newer) version offered. Good enough? > > > > > > No, not good enough, as that doesn't matter at all. All that matters > > > is, what's in the tree. And the latest stable version is 0.8, no matter > > > what you think. The question remains: Why should a different version be > > > offered? > > > > Sorry Alexander, I just don't get where you're going with this. Version > > 0.8 was released September 27, 2004! There have been 4 major new releases > > since then, which include many bug fixes, and new and improved features. > > 0.8 is old and busted, 0.9.3 is the new hotness! > > Guys, > > Just to prevent the heat from escalating, may I offer my observation > that the two of you seems to be arguing about completely different > things?
Heat? I'm not mad, just confused ;) > Alexander (and I, likewise) probably misunderstood Darren's question > from the start: when he posted, I thought his expectation that "emerge > dir2ogg" should bring in a newer version than what was offered was a > lack of understanding of how the portage tree works (well, some of my > friends do actually think that the package management system [aptget, > rpm, portage, etc.] would actually be smart enough to automatically > go on the internet and find and install the latest version of a > program, so I wouldn't put any misconception past human capacity). Please note Willie, I am not the original poster. I jumped in here because I wrote the script that the OP is asking about, and I agree the current stable version is long outdated. That said, I _do_ realize that the OP was asking a flawed question. I was simply responding to Alexander: "Why do you think, that a different version should be offered, when you "emerge dir2ogg"?". If he means "why should portage automatically go grab the newest upstream version", then I agree with his implication: it shouldn't. That's not what he wrote though. The wording of his comment reads like he is asking why portage should offer a more current version of the software, which is the source of my confusion. I don't think that anyone here will argue that the software in portage should stagnate on versions years out of date. > But it seems clear to me now that Darren is actually asking about > whether it is polite to give the devs a gentle nudge, asking them > to remove an old, buggy version of software from the portage tree > and add/stablize newer, updated versions (and how to go about doing > so if it is polite). I already did give a gentle nudge ;) > I am actually curious about the same thing: some of the packages that > I use are also a year or two out of date, for the most part I can > get around it by using overlays and third-party ebuilds, and I am > making an effort to learn how to write ebuilds, but it would be nice > to see those ebuilds committed to the official tree. Open a bug (with severity 'enhancement') and ask for a version bump. If you can write an ebuild that has been tested and works, even better... > W > -- > Willie W. Wong > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 408 Fine Hall, Department of Mathematics, > Princeton University, Princeton A mathematician's reputation rests on the > number of bad proofs he has given. -d -- darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976 :: http://badcomputer.org "...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected..." - Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972 -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
