Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #14708
| Path | csiph.com!aioe.org!news.servidellagleba.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod |
|---|---|
| From | Scott Talbert <swt@techie.net> |
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.maint.python |
| Subject | Re: pyfakefs: Outdate version was migrated today |
| Date | Fri, 09 Dec 2022 22:00:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <FASDn-9y9G-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <FASk1-9y33-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| X-Mailbox-Line | From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Fri Dec 9 20:59:03 2022 |
| Old-Return-Path | <swt@techie.net> |
| X-Amavis-Spam-Status | No, score=-7.2 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no |
| X-Policyd-Weight | using cached result; rate: -4.6 |
| MIME-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed |
| X-Mailing-List | <debian-python@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/20574 |
| List-ID | <debian-python.lists.debian.org> |
| List-URL | <https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/> |
| List-Archive | https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/3786c059-7c1-ffe9-498e-e6ebf211d@techie.net |
| Approved | robomod@news.nic.it |
| Lines | 21 |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
| Sender | robomod@news.nic.it |
| X-Original-Cc | debian-python@lists.debian.org |
| X-Original-Date | Fri, 9 Dec 2022 15:58:20 -0500 (EST) |
| X-Original-Message-ID | <3786c059-7c1-ffe9-498e-e6ebf211d@techie.net> |
| X-Original-References | <c377267d90d6894ac37bcedf1e7d1fc8@posteo.de> |
| Xref | csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:14708 |
Show key headers only | View raw
On Fri, 9 Dec 2022, c.buhtz@posteo.jp wrote: > Hello folks, > my question is not critic but just learning purpose. Because in the Debian > universe I always assume that there is a good reason behind each activity, no > matter if I understand it or not. > > Here is one I don't understand. > Today (9th December '22) pyfakefs 4.6.3 was migrated [1] into testing. But > the latest stable release at upstream is 5.0.0 release two months ago [2]. > > So why does a Debian package maintainer invest time and resources into > packaging an out dated version of a package? The version that migrated to testing on 9 December was just a bug fix, see [3]. Version 4.6.3 was initially packaged on 12 September [4]. Scott [3] https://tracker.debian.org/news/1393666/accepted-python-pyfakefs-463-3-source-into-unstable/ [4] https://tracker.debian.org/news/1361844/accepted-python-pyfakefs-463-1-source-into-unstable/
Back to linux.debian.maint.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
pyfakefs: Outdate version was migrated today c.buhtz@posteo.jp - 2022-12-09 21:40 +0100 Re: pyfakefs: Outdate version was migrated today Scott Talbert <swt@techie.net> - 2022-12-09 22:00 +0100
csiph-web