mwoehlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would that (and the 2003 update date) mean that gzip is unmaintained?
Not necessarily, no.
Paul Eggert wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) writes:
http://directory.fsf.org/gzip.html; no mention there
1.3.5 is mentioned on that Directory page as the "(devel)" release.
Anyway, I wrote rms about the lack of official releases in recent
decades.
For what it's worth, I was responsibl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) writes:
> > with http://directory.fsf.org/gzip.html; no mention there)... which, of
>
> 1.3.5 is mentioned on that Directory page as the "(devel)" release.
>
> Anyway, I wrote rms about the lack of official releases in recent
> decades.
For what it's worth, I w
> with http://directory.fsf.org/gzip.html; no mention there)... which, of
1.3.5 is mentioned on that Directory page as the "(devel)" release.
Anyway, I wrote rms about the lack of official releases in recent
decades.
k
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.gnulib.bugs/7179
> ...
> When building coreutils-5.97 from the long available stable tarball, make
> runs bison and works with Apple's provided versions of the tools.
That's not what that URL says. It says you built from CVS
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Seriously, would you take a look at my post's
> attachment above that started this subthread, please?
Sorry, I haven't a clue what started this thread.
> It was the make that raised the bison error, not the
> bootstrap script.
After a bootstrap, when you do a 'make
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 rathe
<[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.
D
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> heh, it's nice to get a second opinion, but is there ever a case when
> "the latest stable version" is ever _not_ recommended? ;)
Yes, actually. gzip is one example. The latest stable version is
1.2.4a but it has been so long since a stable release and many
problems
