Paul Eggert wrote:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?
