On Feb 17, 2008, at 19:28, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2008-02-17 09:15:47 -0500, Kevin Ballard wrote:
Right now we're providing the official, released, stable version. That's what we should provide.
I agree that it should be provided. What I was requesting is that 2.13 be provided as well (but 2.27 would still be the default). And I don't think one can blame Debian or administrators of machines that have 2.13 only, in particular because 2.27 was released as stable on January 21:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/unison-announce/message/51
i.e. less than a month ago. If you still think that 2.13 is outdated and must not be provided for this reason, then I propose to remove any software that is more than one-month old.
Vincent, I'm sure you were proposing that to illustrate how ludicrous it would be. I'm sure we currently have many many ports that install software that's outdated by more than a month. On Feb 17, 2008, at 07:36, Kevin Ballard wrote:
No, the solution here is to not do anything. Anybody using 2.13 needs to upgrade if they want to work with 2.27. We are not in the business of providing old port versions, and we *should not* be.
Kevin, I think we are in fact in the business of providing old port versions too. Where the newer version of the software is incompatible in some way with the older version of the software, it's reasonable to have two portfiles, if there is still demand for the older version. We already have this for several software packages. Consider php5 and php4; apache2, apache20 and apache; apr and apr0; mysql5, mysql4 and mysql3; postgresql83, postgresql82, postgresql81, postgresql80 and postgresql7; db46, db45, db44, db43, db42, db41 and db3.