I notice a few major packages that haven't been updated in -current for
quite a while... Is PV still sick, taking a break, or what's happening?

-GCC - ok 3.3.5 is in -current and stable, 3.4 is in /testing, but 4.0 has
now been released as current stable version, aren't we lagging a little
behind?
-TCL - this hasn't been updated for a *long* time - current stable version
is 8.4.9 released at the end of 2004. Current slackware version has been
updated for a year. (I noticed that /source didn't have a slackbuild script
so I sent PV one ages ago, looks like he didn't like it :P)
-OpenSSL - given this is a pretty important package, we're two versions
behind. -current has 0.9.7e, current stable release is 0.9.7g

There's almost certainly others, these are just the ones I noticed off the
top of my head. It's not such a problem for me. I generally upgrade as new
releases come out (gonna look at gcc 4.0 now), but still.

Martin
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________
"Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum" - I think I think, therefore I think I am

Martin J. Green
First Internet Services
URL: http://www.firstinternetservices.com

IMHO, it becomes clear why openssl isn't updated if
one reads its changelog. Haven't checked other
packages thus can't say.

Mikhail

Martin J. Green wrote:
> I notice a few major packages that haven't been updated in -current for
> quite a while... Is PV still sick, taking a break, or what's happening?

Not to mention the fact that -current is still sticking with the 2.4
kernel, and not the 2.6: I wonder why ?

"gregg" <greggNOSPAMarbage@NOSPAMfree.WANTEDfr> wrote in message
news:4278f111$0$8016$636a15ce@news.free.fr...
> Martin J. Green wrote:
>> I notice a few major packages that haven't been updated in -current for
>> quite a while... Is PV still sick, taking a break, or what's happening?
>
> Not to mention the fact that -current is still sticking with the 2.4
> kernel, and not the 2.6: I wonder why ?

In fairness, 2.6 is available (though the most recent version hasn't been
added) and everything has been set up to support either 2.6 or 2.4, it's
just that 2.4 is still the default.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Martin J. Green wrote:
| I notice a few major packages that haven't been updated in -current for
| quite a while... Is PV still sick, taking a break, or what's happening?
|
| -GCC - ok 3.3.5 is in -current and stable, 3.4 is in /testing, but 4.0
has
| now been released as current stable version, aren't we lagging a little
| behind?
| -TCL - this hasn't been updated for a *long* time - current stable
version
| is 8.4.9 released at the end of 2004. Current slackware version has been
| updated for a year. (I noticed that /source didn't have a slackbuild
script
| so I sent PV one ages ago, looks like he didn't like it :P)
| -OpenSSL - given this is a pretty important package, we're two versions
| behind. -current has 0.9.7e, current stable release is 0.9.7g
|
| There's almost certainly others, these are just the ones I noticed off
the
| top of my head. It's not such a problem for me. I generally upgrade as
new
| releases come out (gonna look at gcc 4.0 now), but still.
|
| Martin
|
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________
| "Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum" - I think I think, therefore I think I am
|
| Martin J. Green
| First Internet Services
| URL: http://www.firstinternetservices.com
|

Well, I don't think you are ever going to see Pat throwing out updates a
day or two after a project releases new code. Especially when they are
undergoing a major revision. I know, it's current and not stable you're
talking about, but it's just still not gonna happen, for several good
reasons; the first that springs to mind is making sure every package on
the system is gonna agree with the new release. Even on the "bleeding
edge", there's not much point in throwing stuff together willy-nilly
with the chance it will break packages. I personally like this, it's
one of the reasons I like slack.

As far as gcc, new 3.4 releases are still going to be coming out; it's
not dead. I figure once the 4.0 is tested a little, it will move to
testing (making it an option) and 3.4 will move to stable.

Then again, I could be full of poop...



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCePsQ/u+3PIk1ZXQRAiIdAKCfi2KuJASGjwDCPHDrwu+7g3wFmQCeOnm u
hmg7504xKEcBJ9S3b7YdApQ=
=HZSq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Hi

[...]
>, for several good
> reasons; the first that springs to mind is making sure every package on
> the system is gonna agree with the new release. Even on the "bleeding
> edge", [ ...]

Just out of curiosity how this checking is done? Do you know ?

Ralph

Martin J. Green wrote :

> I notice a few major packages that haven't been updated in -current for
> quite a while... Is PV still sick, taking a break, or what's happening?

There was quit a lot of updates out last Sunday first of may, and
there's some patches out for Slackware 10.1 too.

Maybe the usual quiet time after a release has ended.
--
Thomas O.

This area is designed to become quite warm during normal operation.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ralph Zajac wrote:
| Hi
|
| [...]
|
|>, for several good
|>reasons; the first that springs to mind is making sure every package on
|>the system is gonna agree with the new release. Even on the "bleeding
|>edge", [ ...]
|
|
| Just out of curiosity how this checking is done? Do you know ?
|
| Ralph
|
|
I have absolutely no idea, so I guess I'm partly talking out of my rear.
~ But its gotta be done. I'm not saying that everything that goes into
current never breaks anything, but if things were just thrown in there,
especially compilers, current would be a scary place for the average (or
even most power) user. Who would want to spend half their time tracking
libraries and requirements, if they did something else 40-50 hours a
week for a living?

I ran current for a year or so, and can't remember anything ever
breaking. And I have no first-hand knowledge of the exact process. I'm
just speaking on my preferences and experiences.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCeQlD/u+3PIk1ZXQRArWKAKDJrvkp0LqjhX+5KXbOWkcQiNSxRwCeMJK j
Q9MZrzV5P5l27D19B3FqhIw=
=asUl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Martin J. Green wrote:

> In fairness, 2.6 is available (though the most recent version hasn't been
> added) and everything has been set up to support either 2.6 or 2.4, it's
> just that 2.4 is still the default.

Yes, true enough: I didn't mean to be unfair.
Just that 2.6 not being the default on -current puzzles me.
I wonder what's the reason for PV, that's all :-)

++

gregg blithely blithered
> Martin J. Green wrote:
>
>> In fairness, 2.6 is available (though the most recent version hasn't been
>> added) and everything has been set up to support either 2.6 or 2.4, it's
>> just that 2.4 is still the default.
>
> Yes, true enough: I didn't mean to be unfair.
> Just that 2.6 not being the default on -current puzzles me.
> I wonder what's the reason for PV, that's all :-)
>
> ++

I would think because the oldest 2.4.* is more stable than the newest
2.6.*.

--
Besides, I think Slackware sounds better than 'Microsoft,' don't you?
-- Patrick Volkerding