Hello Angel,
generally spoken you are right, but we should allow exceptions from that rule. We had an emacs-cvs package for years because that was the one people really used and despite being build from CVS it was damned stable.
Yes but 0.4.12 was released after 0.4.93 .. they are handling the version number system in a strange way. See [1]
How long does "release" 0.4.93 exist? If was not changed for long, we can consider it stable. The maintainer should be able to decide this.
Release 0.4.93 exist since 20-12-2009, 8 days later they released a new _stable_ version (28-12-2009), as I said, the way that they are using to handling their version number is not correct at all, and it tends to confuse people, saying that 0.4.12 it was out-of-date. 0.4.93 uses libinfinity and split ot the net6 package .. net6 which still in [community] its for 0.4.12 at this moment doing nothing (because isn't required for other software) .. I am against update to 0.4.93, as I said, is not a stable release and they're still development stable releases under 0.4.XX branch and unstable into 0.4.9X branch (as you see this is kinda confusing).. This is not the case from emacs, in this case, should be more like the php case .. 5.2 vs 5.3 .. Copying again to sergej [1] http://gobby.0x539.de/trac/ Regards -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Trusted User Linux Counter: #359909 http://www.angvp.com