Subject: "Netiquette" of requesting package updates

From: [email-masked] (David Sewell)
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 11:14:40 -0700 (MST)

As a new Debian user who migrated from Slackware, one of the
few things I find a comparative disadvantage is being dropped
back to earlier releases of certain programs.  I spend close
to 50% of my Linux time using two programs, an editor and
a WWW browser, and in both cases the current Debian version
is several months out of date.

The last thing I want to do is to pester a volunteer who is
freely donating time to hurry up with a new package.  On
the other hand, it would seem that keeping up with new releases
should be part of the maintainer's responsibility.  What is the
etiquette on requesting or inquiring about package updates, if
any?

And in the meantime, I assume it would be best to remove the two
packages in question and put binaries of the newer versions in
/usr/local/bin, rather than to just replace the installed
binaries in /usr/bin?

---

From: "Brian C. White" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 16:16:04 -0400

> is several months out of date.

Which editor and browser are you talking about?  Are you looking
at the "stable" or the "development" directory tree?

I maintain the "netscape" package and it is right up to date.
You have to look at the development tree to see it, though.  (Well,
it _will_ be up-to-date as soon as it gets moved out of Incoming.)

> etiquette on requesting or inquiring about package updates, if

Personally, I'm more than happy to receive a short, polite note
telling me that a later version of Netscape has been released.

> /usr/local/bin, rather than to just replace the installed

I believe so, yes.

                                        Brian
                               ( [email-masked] )

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In theory, theory and practice are the same.  In practice, they're not.

---

From: [email-masked] (David Sewell)
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 14:41:15 -0700 (MST)

Brian C. White writes:
>> I spend close

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.  :)

---

From: Buddha M Buck <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 20:57:56 -0400 (EDT)

> them is behind by a minor version, the other by a major +  2 minors.

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-masked]" (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.

---

From: Gerry Jensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 20:19:22 -0600 (MDT)

On Sat, 24 Aug 1996, David Sewell wrote:

> back to earlier releases of certain programs.

If you have not done so, you might want to check out the unstable
directory to see if there's a more current version of the program(s) you
need there.

Gerry

---

From: "Randall Shutt" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 22:58:04 -0400

Does anyone know where the dpkg remapping table is?  I need to remap
pentium to i386 due to my recent installation of a pgcc compiler.  Trouble is,
somehow, dpkg --print-arrcheticture returns pentium.  Tends to hose lots of
install stuff and cause nice errors with dpkg -i.  Anyway, thanks alot.

-- 
                                            =======================
                                            Randall Shutt              
                                            RaveNet Systems, Inc.
                                            =======================

---

From: "Brian C. White" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 10:57:58 -0400

> them is behind by a minor version, the other by a major +  2 minors.

I suggest you contact the maintainer and (politely, of course) ask if
he/she is planning a new release soon.

Also, offering to take over the packages because you use them quite
extensively might be an idea.  The first time you create a new package
it will probably take half a day to a day, but gets much easier with a
little practice.  I can now build new packages in about 30 minutes.  Some
of the more complex ones (like gnats) will take more time.  Maintaining
existing packages is usually quite easy, however.

I took over cfengine because we use it here quite extensively and the
previous maintainer was not.  Since you use those two packages a lot,
you will probably be a good and responsive maintainer.

                                        Brian
                               ( [email-masked] )

---

From: Ian Jackson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 96 14:21 BST

> install stuff and cause nice errors with dpkg -i.  Anyway, thanks alot.

The table is `archtable' in the source package, but it's compiled in
so you'd have to rebuild the package.

dpkg 1.3.10 will have `pentium' as an alias for `i386', and it will be
available shortly.

Ian.