Re: OT: latest stable version not recommended

[mwoehlke]

Paul Eggert wrote:
> <address@hidden> writes:
> > Can I validly talk Apple into upgrading their provided gzip to 1.3.5
> > when this is not in the stable category (for _whatever_ reason[s])?
> > If 1.3.5 is fine to use, it needs to be assigned as such, or Apple
> > would find an argument to close the bug rather quickly.
>
> Debian stable uses gzip 1.3.5.  Solaris 10 uses gzip 1.3.3.  (Both
> have added patches, for security reasons.)  Anybody using gzip 1.2.4
> in this day and age ought to have their head examined.

Ok, as one of "anybody", I have to object to that... The problem is the 
only thing advertised *anywhere* is 1.2.4. I had to look *really 
closely* at http://www.gzip.org to find 1.3.3 (and don't even bother 
with http://directory.fsf.org/gzip.html; no mention there)... which, of 
course, is labeled "beta" and doesn't mention anything about 1.2.4 being 
"bad". And darned if I found a 1.3.5 anywhere except 
http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net. If I have to be an "insider" to have 
any clue that 1.2.4 is "bad", then someone (multiple someone's, really) 
is SERIOUSLY dropping the ball as a maintainer.

--
Matthew
The hippo made me do it! What? What do you mean you can't see the hippo?