[arch-general] Official releases from upstream
eschwartz93 at gmail.com
Sun Nov 23 20:16:51 UTC 2014
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:35 AM, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf at rocketmail.com>
> while for virtualbox Arch Linux does follow upstream, even while there
> is a critical known USB issue, for Claws Mail, where AFAIK isn't a
> critical issue, it doesn't follow upstream.
I will go out on a limb here and say if it is flagged out-of-date that
implies it is meant to be updated. Or the maintainer would simply re-mark
it as up to date.
I am sure there could be all kinds of reasons why any specific package
could be out of date for a while, without implying that other packages
should be left in the same unfortunate condition to match. ;)
I try to understand this, but I can't understand it. Is there latitude
> for the maintainers to decide what is an official release from upstream
> and what isn't?
Obviously the maintainer hasn't gotten around to updating it yet, which is
why the package was left with a big question mark over its head for a
month. (For a given value of question mark, anyway.)
If the maintainer went "nanana I think it's up to date anyway", then maybe
that would indicate it isn't following upstream, and we should all start
More information about the arch-general