dbn.lists at gmail.com
Wed Aug 9 21:52:41 PDT 2006
On 8/9/06, Ag. Hatzimanikas <a.hatzim at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Miguel,
> On Wed, Aug 09, at 05:12 Miguel Bazdresch wrote:
> > Recently I saw a patch for a vulnerability in mutt 1.5.11. Wouldn't it
> > be better to upgrade to 1.5.12?
> I think that too and I am the one who submitted the patch!. :)
> The first thing that we have to know,is that no one from the BLFS editors
> is using mutt,except from Archaic who still uses the stable version though.
> And its admirable for Dan Nicholson who did the last upgrade to mutt-1.5.11 some
> months ago,because every little update to the Book needs time and personal effort.
Actually, it was Archaic who was running 1.5.11 and came in with an
emphatic "it's been stable for months" or something similar. If you
can believe that. There was some argument because we always use the
stable releases and some other packages had been kept from being
updated for this reason.
I use mutt in only the most dire of situations, so it's difficult for
me to comment on it's stability. Mutt is something of an exception to
the above rule because the developers have an insane release policy.
If it hadn't been over 6 months since 1.5.11 and over 2 years since
1.4.2, this probably wouldn't have happened.
So, for me to say that the new development version of Mutt is stable
within a month of its release is a stretch. Keep the positive reports
coming in, and maybe it'll happen after a while. Now, if the
developers would just pull it together and make one "stable"
> By using mutt 1.5.11 in the Book,the Blfs editors they already broke the basic rule.
> "Only Stable Versions going into the Book"
Right. And we don't like to make exceptions because that sets precedents, etc.
> If we really want to go a small step further,then we can always create a trusted user
> group that could assist the L(B)FS developers.
> I believe most of us,unless I am totally mistaken,they have a favorite application,that
> following the development by monitoring the mailing lists, or trying the new versions
> or whatever).
> Personally I am following the development for Vim,mutt,elinks,fvwm,rxvt-unicode and zsh.
I'd love to hear anyone's experience using packages newer than what's
in the book. It makes it a lot easier to justify an upgrade if there's
a handful of people reporting success.
And there is a place to report these things (besides the mailing
list). The Wiki is perfect for this. It's like hints on steroids.
There are still lots of pages that need to be created, ping me and
I'll get it done.
I certainly don't want this to be a one way street where people just
wait for the editors to get things done. I read something interesting
from Mark Shuttleworth, the head guy for Ubuntu a while back. He
talked about how he needed his core developers to stay on target
making sure that the platform was stable. It was the people outside of
this circle that provided fresh insight and experimented with new
ideas. These people paved the way for what would happen next.
I think that holds true here, too. At least I'll be listening. :-)
More information about the blfs-dev