On 11/9/17 1:56 am, Dutchman01 wrote:
> I request a new NUT release as current dates back to March 9, 2016: NUT 2.7.4
> The fact stays that not all distro’s use latest snapshots/commits from github 
> dev tree.

Not all of the distros have moved to 2.7.4, either...

As Sam alluded to out on the list (are you subscribed?), if you have a specific 
issue (such as the one addressed by the libusb-1.0 branch), let us know and we 
can help you build packages for your distro that include the patches you need.

If you just want the latest version, note that the tarballs that you can get 
from http://buildbot.networkupstools.org (check for links on the Debian 
builders) are very similar to releases - we use the same `make distcheck` 
procedure to build and test what we can (without real UPS hardware) as when we 
build an "official" release.

I was going to push for a new release that includes the libusb-1.0 branch, and 
then I found some issues in the Git history that we need to resolve before 
merging (see discussion at https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/issues/300 ). 
Arnaud has also been busy lately, and I am in the midst of trying to move the 
server that includes, among other things, buildbot.networkupstools.org.

That said, let us know if you have specific issues that might have been solved 

On Sep 10, 2017, at 5:27 PM, Tim Dawson wrote:

> And you can source build the current version from source on pretty much 
> anything, thus negating any value of distro centric packaging . . .

While this is true for many packages, I think this is a bit of a stretch for a 
tool like NUT when it is being used to shut down a system. Barring the 
inevitable bug that creeps in, I think the distros are in a much better place 
to fix integration problems with their shutdown scripts. Sam's suggestion of 
adding newer NUT sources to existing Fedora RPMs seems like it would reap the 
benefits of both the distro integration and the newer NUT features and bug 
Nut-upsuser mailing list

Reply via email to